Toward a Cultural Health Psychology : taking researcher's and participants' activity into consideration

Several authors in critical health psychology have underlined the need to develop models of psychological life within qualitative research that are not limited to mere descriptions of health or illness. This communication presents methodological basis in order to overcome such descriptive level by proposing a socio-cultural approach. First, we analyze the dominant tendency in psychology consisting on defining the constructivist paradigm and qualitative research as impressionist, vague and subjective, that is, "non scientific". We claim that qualitative research may be objective, clear and precise while succeeding to consider psychological processes within their socio-cultural context. We make "indirect methods" a major focus, as able to capture psychological processes at stake in health and illness by interpreting their "traces". Moreover, we illustrate a variety of methods used in psychology to study the structuring role of culture in this process. We conclude by discussing the possibility to build complex psychological concepts regardless immediate experience.

A Thematic Comparison of Eight Frameworks of Quality Criteria in Qualitative Health Research

Background: Despite the increasing incidences of the publication of assessment frameworks intending to establish the "standards" of the quality of qualitative research, the research conducted using such empirical methods are still facing difficulties in being published or recognised by funding agencies. Methods: We conducted a thematic content analysis of eight frameworks from psychology/psychiatry and general medicine. The frameworks and their criteria are then compared against each other. Findings: The results illustrated the difficulties in reaching consensus on the definition of quality criteria. This showed the differences between the frameworks from the point of views of the underlying epistemology and the criteria suggested. Discussion: The aforementioned differences reflect the diversity of paradigms implicitly referred to by the authors of the frameworks, although rarely explicitly mentioned in text. We conclude that the increase in qualitative research and publications has failed to overcome the difficulties in establishing shared criteria and the great heterogeneity of concepts raises methodological and epistemological problems.

Quality of Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences : Analysis of the Common Criteria Present in 58 Assessment Guidelines by Expert Users

The number of qualitative research methods has grown substantially over the last twenty years, both in social sciences and, more recently, in the health sciences. This growth came with questions on the quality criteria needed to evaluate this work, and numerous guidelines were published. The latters include many discrepancies though, both in their vocabulary and construction. Many expert evaluators decry the absence of consensual and reliable evaluation tools. The authors present the results of an evaluation of 58 existing guidelines in 4 major health science fields (medicine and epidemiology; nursing and health education; social sciences and public health; psychology / psychiatry, research methods and organization) by expert users (article reviewers, experts allocating funds, editors, etc.). The results propose a toolbox containing 12 consensual criteria with the definitions given by expert users. They also indicate in which disciplinary field each type of criteria is known to be more or less essential. Nevertheless, the authors highlight the limitations of the criteria comparability, as soon as one focuses on their specific definitions. They conclude that each criterion in the toolbox must be explained to come to broader consensus and identify definitions that are consensual to all the fields examined and easily operational.

Psychometric properties of the French version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire

This instrumental study was designed to investigate the psychometric properties of the French version and the cross-language replicability of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ) at the factor- and at the facet-level. The ZKPQ is an instrument aimed at assessing the five basic factors of Zuckerman's Alternative Five-Factor Model (AFFM). Subjects were 843 French-speaking Swiss, mainly students. At the factor-level, the reliability ranged from .73 to .87 and at the facet level, the reliability ranged from .57 to .77. Differences between genders are congruent with those found in the American sample. Women scored higher on N-Anx, and lower on ImpSS, and Act. A series of exploratory factor analyses supported the overall five-factor structure and the structure at the facet-level. The correlations among the scales support that the five basic factors of the AFFM are orthogonal. Targeted factor analyses and congruence coefficients show high cross-language replicability at the factor- and at the facet-level. The adequacy of the model at the factor- and facet-level was tested using confirmatory factor analyses. The results show that the French version of the ZKPQ is a reliable and valid instrument and has a high cross-language replicability.