Complexity of the Paradigms Present in Quality Criteria of Qualitative Research Grids

With qualitative methods being increasingly used in health science fields, numerous grids proposing criteria to evaluate the quality of this type of research have been produced. Expert evaluators deem that there is a lack of consensual tools to evaluate qualitative research. Based on the review of 133 quality criteria grids for qualitative research in health sciences, the authors present the results of a computerized lexicometric analysis, which confirms the variety of intra- and inter-grid constructions, including within the same field. This variety is linked to the authors' paradigmatic references underlying the criteria proposed. These references seem to be built intuitively, reflecting internal representations of qualitative research, thus making the grids and their criteria hard to compare. Consequently, the consensus on the definitions and the number of criteria becomes problematic. The paradigmatic and theoretical references of the grids should be specified so that users could better assess their contributions and limitations.

The problem of appraising qualitative research

Qualitative research can make a valuable contribution to the study of quality and safety in health care. Sound ways of appraising qualitative research are needed, but currently there are many different proposals with few signs of an emerging consensus. One problem has been the tendency to treat qualitative research as a unified field. We distinguish universal features of quality from those specific to methodology and offer a set of minimally prescriptive prompts to assist with the assessment of generic features of qualitative research. In using these, account will need to be taken of the particular method of data collection and methodological approach being used. There may be a need for appraisal criteria suited to the different methods of qualitative data collection and to different methodological approaches. These more specific criteria would help to distinguish fatal flaws from more minor errors in the design, conduct, and reporting of qualitative research. There will be difficulties in doing this because some aspects of qualitative research, particularly those relating to quality of insight and interpretation, will remain difficult to appraise and will rely largely on subjective judgement.

Comparative analysis of ten assesment grids of quality criteria in qualitative research

The authors present 10 grids which are widely used in Health Sciences for the assessment of quality in research. They proceed through a comparative thematic analysis of these grids and show which points of view are preferred. They insist on the issues that differentiate these grids from each other and suggest the analysis of their differences by distinguishing the theoretical perspectives that underpin each one of these grids. Whilst the authors of the assessment grids rarely refer to the implicit theoretical backgrounds that guide their work, findings show that these grids convey varied epistemologies and research models. This gap renders the comparison of quality assessment in qualitative research a very difficult task, unless we shift our focus on the relationship between the grids, their theoretical backgrounds and their specific research subjects.

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.

Diversity of the Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences: Lessons from a Lexicometric Analysis Composed of 133 Guidelines

A review of health sciences literature shows a substantial increase in qualitative publications. This work incorporates a certain number of research quality guidelines. We present the results of the Alceste® lexicometric analysis, which includes 133 quality grids for qualitative research covering five disciplinary fields of the health sciences: medicine and epidemiology, public health and health education, nursing, health sociology and anthropology, psychiatry and psychology. This analysis helped to cross-check the disciplinary fields with the various objectives assigned to the different criteria in the grids examined. The results obtained with Alceste® show the variability of the objectives sought by the authors of the guidelines. These discrepancies are not directly associated to disciplinary fields, and appear to be more closely linked to different qualitative research conceptualizations within the disciplines, and with essential qualitative research validation criteria. These conceptualizations must be clarified to help users better understand the objectives targeted by the grids, and promote more appreciation for qualitative research in the health sciences.

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.

Quantitative and qualitative research on brief systemic therapies carried out within the framework of an ambulatory consultation for couples and families

Abstract: This article presents both a brief systemic intervention method (IBS) consisting in 6 sessions developed in an ambulatory service for couples and families, and two research projects done in collaboration with the Institute for Psychotherapy of the University of Lausanne. The first project is quantitative and it aims at evaluating the effectiveness of ISB. One of its main feature is that outcomes are assessed at different levels of individual and family functioning: 1) symptoms and individual functioning; 2) quality of marital relationship; 3) parental and co-parental relationships; 4) familial relationships. The second project is a qualitative case study about a marital therapy which identifies and analyses significant moments of the therapeutic process from the patients' perspective. Methodology was largely inspired by Daniel Stem's work about "moments of meeting" in psychotherapy. Results show that patients' theories about relationship and change are important elements that deepen our understanding of the change process in couple and family therapy. The interest of associating clinicians and researchers for the development and validation of a new clinical model is discussed.

Ethical dimension of circle Integrative Community Therapy on qualitative research

This study discusses ethical issues in research involving human beings and seeks to understand the relationship between qualitative research and the ethical care guidelines for Integrative Community Therapy (ICT) circles based on Resolution 466/12 of the National Health Council of the Ministry of Health of Brazil. This is documentary research, which analyzed Resolution 466/12 and ICT circles seeking to make a connection between the ethical guidelines contained in both. The analysis of the corpus was directed toward the construction of the following results: the person's perception, cultural diversity and community. It also brings in consideration of the influence of the ethical dimension of the ICT circles on qualitative research. We conclude that ICT circles are innovative in the sense of the diversity of participants and respect for cultural and social differences. Thus, ICT circles promote acquisition of quality information for social research as well as compliance with the ethical guidelines outlined in Resolution No. 466/12.

Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student well-being

Although there is dissimiliarity in theoretical research approaches to subjective well-being and to assessments of well-being, there is agreement regarding the value of well-being, especially among student populations. In the highly structured, achievement-oriented, non-optimal context of a classroom, individual well-being is a necessary pre-condition for learning. Among student populations well-being should not be construed as an achievement enhancer; but, rather, recognized and measured as an educational value of its own. However, it is necessary for the positive bias towards learning at least in highly structured, achievement-orientated, non-optional learning contexts like school [cf. Hascher, T. (2004). Wohlbefinden in der Schule. Münster: Waxmann]. How can it be measured? Since different research approaches lead to a variety of instruments, the following paper will focus on two ways of assessing well-being in school: a questionnaire on student well-being (N = 2014) 1 and a semi-structured daily diary about relevant emotional situations in school (N = 58, period 3 × 2 weeks). Both methods are introduced and their methodological quality is discussed in terms of reliability, validity and in terms of their usefulness for improving school practice. Furthermore, the research potential of combining quantitative and qualitative data on students’ well-being is addressed.

Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews:A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods

Objective: Qualitative research is increasingly valued as part of the evidence for policy and practice, but how it should be appraised is contested. Various appraisal methods, including checklists and other structured approaches, have been proposed but rarely evaluated. We aimed to compare three methods for appraising qualitative research papers that were candidates for inclusion in a systematic review of evidence on support for breast-feeding. Method: A sample of 12 research papers on support for breast-feeding was appraised by six qualitative reviewers using three appraisal methods: unprompted judgement, based on expert opinion; a UK Cabinet Office quality framework; and CASP, a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Papers were assigned, following appraisals, to 1 of 5 categories, which were dichotomized to indicate whether or not papers should be included in a systematic review. Patterns of agreement in categorization of papers were assessed quantitatively using κ statistics, and qualitatively using cross-case analysis. Results: Agreement in categorizing papers across the three methods was slight (κ =0.13; 95% CI 0.06-0.24). Structured approaches did not appear to yield higher agreement than that by unprompted judgement. Qualitative analysis revealed reviewers' dilemmas in deciding between the potential impact of findings and the quality of the research execution or reporting practice. Structured instruments appeared to make reviewers more explicit about the reasons for their judgements. Conclusions: Structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review. Future research should address how appraisals of qualitative research should be incorporated in systematic reviews. © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2007.

Attitudes towards to sexuality among older people: a qualitative research

Sexuality is an important component of human being and contributes to the quality of life. Sexual activity dependa on altitudes toward sexuality. Although this is an important issue, the research on attitudes toward sexuatity among older people hás been a neglected topic. Objectives: To understand altitudes towards sexuality among older people and to assess the relationship between sociodemographic factors and such attitudes.Methods: This cross-sectíonal study was conducted on 35 community-dwelltng older individuais (> 65 years old; 66% were men). Data collectíon was based on a questionnaire whtch includes three components: (1) Questíons on sociodemographic characteristícs; (2) A 13-item scale assessment of attitudes toward to sexualtty (SAATS) scored from O to 52, being highervalues related with positive attítudes; and (3) an open question "in your opinton what is sexuality?". Results: In this sample 40% of participants (n = 14) reported that there is no sexuality among older people. For the whole sample, the mean score of SAATS and respective standard deviatíon (± SD) was 28. 9 (± 6. 63). There were no differences in the mean score of SAATS by gender, but such score was lower among oldest people (p = 0. 006), among individuais reporting less schooling years (p = 0. 001) and among those with no companion (p = 0. 012). In regards to the qualitatíve analysis of the open question, the main answers obtained fali into the affectíve dimension, with the majority of partidpants reporting that sexuality is "lave", "respect" and "tenderness". Conclusions: Oldest people, those with lower educatíon levei and those with no companion presenting more negative attítudes towards to sexuality. Among older people sexuality is manly based on the affective dimension.

Boys In White: A Classic Of Qualitative Research Turns 50.

This article analyzes Boys in white: student culture in medical schoolby Howard S. Becker, Blanche Geer, Everett C. Hughes and Anselm Strauss, considered a model of qualitative research in sociology. The analysis investigates the trajectories of the authors, the book, qualitative analysis, and the medical students, emphasizing their importance in the origins of medical sociology and the sociology of medical education. In the trajectory of the authors, bibliographical information is given. The trajectory of qualitative research focuses on how this methodology influences the construction of the field. The investigation of the students' trajectory shows how they progress through their first years at medical school to build their own student culture.

Research Quality, Publications and Impact in Hydraulic Engineering into the 21st Century. Publish or Perish, Commercial versus Open Access, Internet versus Libraries

One of the main objectives of the first International Junior Researcher and Engineer Workshop on Hydraulic Structures is to provide an opportunity for young researchers and engineers to present their research. But a research project is only completed when it has been published and shared with the community. Referees and peer experts play an important role to control the research quality. While some new electronic tools provide further means to disseminate some research information, the quality and impact of the works remain linked with some thorough expert-review process and the publications in international scientific journals and books. Importantly unethical publishing standards are not acceptable and cheating is despicable.