Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
Qualitative research aims to study things in their natural setting to make sense of a phenomenon in terms of meanings people bring to them<ref>Denkin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.) ''Handbook of qualitative research.'' London: Sage. 1994. </ref><ref>Yates J, Leggett T. Qualitative research: An introduction. Radiologic technology. 2016 Nov 1;88(2):225-31.</ref> Qualitative research involves the studied use of a variety of methods – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts <ref>Aspers P, Corte U. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology. 2019 Jun 1;42(2):139-60.</ref>   
Qualitative research aims to study things in their natural setting to make sense of a phenomenon in terms of meanings people bring to them<ref>Denkin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.) ''Handbook of qualitative research.'' London: Sage. 1994. </ref><ref>Yates J, Leggett T. Qualitative research: An introduction. Radiologic technology. 2016 Nov 1;88(2):225-31.</ref> Qualitative research involves the studied use of a variety of methods – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts <ref>Aspers P, Corte U. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology. 2019 Jun 1;42(2):139-60.</ref>   


Interpreting a [https://physio-pedia.com/Qualitative_Research?utm_source=physiopedia&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=ongoing_internal qualitative research] paper is an analysis of the quality of the material. It allows you to understand the reliability of the research and the construction of the paper<ref>Algeo N. Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper. Physioplus Course 2020</ref>.   
Interpreting a [https://physio-pedia.com/Qualitative_Research?utm_source=physiopedia&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=ongoing_internal qualitative research] paper is an analysis of the quality of the material. It allows you to understand the reliability of the research and the construction of the paper<ref name=":1">Algeo N. Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper. Physioplus Course 2020</ref>.   


'''Characteristics of qualitative research'''<ref name=":0">Samsi K. Critical appraisal of qualitative research. Lecture, from King’s College London. 2012.</ref>''':'''   
'''Characteristics of qualitative research'''<ref name=":0">Samsi K. Critical appraisal of qualitative research. Lecture, from King’s College London. 2012.</ref>''':'''   
Line 33: Line 33:


== Step by Step Guide to Interpret A Qualitative Research Paper ==
== Step by Step Guide to Interpret A Qualitative Research Paper ==
 
The [https://www.physio-pedia.com/images/e/ec/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist.pdf CASP]  is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists which are often used in health research and cover many research methods, including qualitative research. They are designed to prompt the reader to reflect on different aspects of a research paper and are typically structured around three core domains asking<ref name=":1" />:
=== Sample size and participants ===
<u>Check the following:</u>
* Was the sample used appropriate to its research questions?
* Methods of the participants' selection and recruitment
* Was the recruitment strategy relevant to the research question?
* Was the sampling strategy justified?
* Was the sampling purposive/ theoretical?
* Was it a convenience sample?
 
=== Data Collection ===
Were the data collection methods appropriate for research objectives and settings? this involves an in-depth analysis of the methods and how did this influence the findings?
 
=== Data Analysis ===
'''Characteristics of proper data analysis:'''
* Transparency in the analysis and interpretations
* Uses a systematic approach
* Discusses contradicted data and divergent findings
* Multiple coding
* Creditibility of results
* Justified conclusion
 
=== Transferability ===
Could the results of the study be transferred or applied to the practice?
 
Transferability is the qualitative equivalent and refers to the extent that the findings of a particular qualitative study can be applied to other situations. The aim of sampling in qualitative work is to gather a wide range of opinions or experiences about a particular phenomenon or occurrence evident in the research question<ref>Probyn J, Howarth M, Maz J. The ‘middle bit’: how to appraise qualitative research. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 2016 May 2;11(5):248-54.</ref>
 
Strategies for Transferability •Meaningful sample: • Purposive (gives meaningful data) or • Theoretical (allows theory to be tested) or • Nominated (selected by key informants) • Comparison of sample with demographic data •Rich description of research setting •Data saturation (all data heard before)
 
=== Ethics ===
The study should reflect a balance of moral actions
 
Components of the ethical research relationship
* Acknowledgement of bias
* Rigour
* Rapport and managing distress:
* Respect for autonomy
* Confidentiality, especially in research reports
* Avoidance of exploitation (being aware of power relationships) 
 
== Checklists: ==
[https://www.physio-pedia.com/images/e/ec/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist.pdf CASP]  is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists which are often used in health research and cover many research methods, including qualitative research. They are designed to prompt the reader to reflect on different aspects of a research paper and are typically structured around three core domains asking:
# The validity of the results
# The validity of the results
# The findings of the study
# The findings of the study
# The transferability  
# The transferability  
'''The Validity of the results:''' This can be subjective as these studies don't have statistical significance instead there is a heavy reliance on the essence of the qualitative research by critically appraise and reflect on the methods and the design of the research.


Section B looks at the findings or the results of the study.
=== Analyzing the Introduction ===
The research introduction should give the context and reflect the importance of the research question leading up to the rationale of the research. It should also discuss the gap in the area that's been researched with the angle of focus.  
 
Previous research should also be discussed and a highlight on similarities and limitations to explain why this research should take place and it's significant to find answers<ref name=":1" />,


Section C is concerned with the applicability of the results.
When interpreting the introduction, a good question to ask is whether the use of qualitative research was appropriate for this type of study or not? Qualitative methods are used when illuminating some actions or subjective experiences of participants or looking to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon.


Analysing the qualitative research, think about these questions:  
'''Questions to ask when interpreting the research question:'''
* Is there a clear statement of the aims of the study?  
* Is there a clear statement of the aims of the study?  
* What are the goals of the study?
* What are the goals of the study?
* What was the rationale for this research?  
* What was the rationale for this research?  
* How relevant is this?  
* How relevant is this?  
* Is the research question clearly formulated? Is it important?  
* Is the research question clearly formulated? Is it important?
A-The research introduction should give the context and reflect the importance of the research question leading up to the rationale of the research. It should also discuss the gap in the area that's been researched with the angle of focus. Previous research should also be discussed and a highlight on similarities and limitations to explain why this research should take place and it's significant to find answers,


B- Analysis of the qualitative research methods and the used approach. Is it appropriate for the questions? is a qualitative approach appropriate? Qualitative methods are used when illuminating some actions or subjective experiences of participants or looking to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon.
'''Section B''' is around the results. What are they? There are questions in the checklist to think about:                                                 


C- Reflecting on the study design and whether it's appropriate for the research question or not. For example, using ethnography would be an appropriate design when studying a particular cultural group.  
3- Contradicting data. There will often be some contradictory data that arises from the research and that needs to be recorded for clarity and transparency with the balance to discuss both sides.                                


D- Analysing the recruitment strategy. For example, exploring the experience of rural dwelling, older adults in communicating with family members during the COVID pandemic. Recruiting participants through social media and using the snowballing technique is a good way to encourage a large sector of participants but using it a the sole recruitment strategy could dismiss or potentially exclude people who aren't good with using technology or those who haven't used technology to communicate with their families. 
4- Did the researchers consider other opinions without bias. a third party could be involved to eliminate the bias of research and reflect reflexivity                                 


E- The sampling strategy. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clear and purposeful to recruit specific participan'''ts who the interesting s'''ubject of the research? Also, think if the sampling was probably quite inclusive and left any cohorts out?
5-Clear statement about the results of the findings. The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature.  Do they critically analyse their findings in the context of different populations, different settings, in the context of research, practice, policy in the context of the evidence base that's out there?                                


F-The data collection method. Looking into the methods used in the research whether they were justified to meet the criteria of the research question and does it match the subject of research? are the methods varied enough to give participants choice?  Also, analysing the way the authors used and documented the methods. For example, if interviews were used to collect data, we should be looking into was the interview structured? Was it semi-structured? Or was it unstructured? And why was that? so the details of the method and the rationale that justifies the use and the application of the method.    
6- The credibility of the findings. Credibility is one of four domains of Lincoln and Guba's evaluative criteria. The four criteria are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.                                  


G-Data saturation. In qualitative research, particularly if it's interviews or focus groups, data saturation is the point at which new information or themes stop to emerge when the data set is saturated.    
Lincoln and Guba<ref>Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).</ref> suggested that in order to evaluate the worth of a study, its trustworthiness needs to be established. Trustworthiness, they suggest, involves establishing credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.                                  


Data saturation and sample sizes in qualitative research are under-reported sometimes. Sample sizes, can often not be justified very well in qualitative research. So, for example, if it's an interpretive phenomenological analysis looking into in-depth analysis usually involves a smaller sample size.      
Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of the findings? One thing to think about is triangulation, for example, looking at different cohorts who have their own experiences of a phenomenon, but from a different viewpoint. An example, looking at facilitators and barriers to return to work after Breast Cancer diagnosis. Including different cohorts such as women who've had breast cancer, employers, healthcare professionals. partners or colleagues, etc.To get different viewpoints and that triangulation is what supports the findings and helps to come into a conclusion.                                  


If data saturation isn't mentioned in the qualitative paper, it could prompt to ask or query the validity of the results because I don't know for certain that there wouldn't have been any other themes that emerged or any contradicting viewpoints or sub-themes that could have emerged.      
Triangulation can be also achieved by using a number of different methods.                                  


This could be challenging for researchers when writing the research protocol and determining the sample size at the stage when data saturation is still unknown at which number of participants and it needs to be monitored and reported.      
Respondent validation. also known as member checking. Checking the analysis to ensure the conclusion is not just an analysis of your interview and ensures a fair representation of the findings.                                                                    


H- Looking at the validity of the findings and any conflict of interest and the relationship between the researcher and the participants as this might influence the results. Looking at factors that might reflect bias in the viewpoints of the researcher, the data collection method that is known as reflexivity. '''Reflexivity''' is essentially self-awareness when a researcher reflects on their own position within the research and they consider their own biases. And importantly, when they make it fairly clear and explicit in the research paper of potential biases that they may have. COREQ is a checklist of the criteria for reporting qualitative research. It is for authors to check and tick off when writing qualitative research where there is a whole section dedicated to reflexivity and the research team and their relationships and their own self-awareness.                              
7-How valuable is this research? Is it applicable or practical to apply on practice, research, policy, to a different population? Looking into the authors' discussion of the contribution of the study to the existing body of knowledge or how does the study contribute to our understanding? Are there new areas of research identified? And also did the author discuss whether findings can be transferred to other contexts or populations or settings. in other words, checking the transferability of the research.  


Reflexivity is self-awareness of one’s role in the research process, and how a researcher’s viewpoint may influence the process. It is unlikely that a researcher would remain completely neutral towards a topic with no opinion or viewpoint towards it at all. As a result, awareness and reflection of this thinking and an examination of our ways of doing is important to note in qualitative research. reflexivity is sometimes confused with reflection. Hibbert et al <ref>Hibbert P, Coupland C, MacIntosh R. Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2010 May 11.</ref> offer a useful distinction between the two terms, suggesting that reflection is like a mirror image in which gives us the opportunity to observe and examine our ways of doing. Reflexivity, on the other hand, involves thinking about our experiences and questioning our ways of doing.                               
=== Sample size and participants ===
<u>Check the following</u><ref name=":0" /><u>:</u>  
* Was the sample used appropriately for its research questions?
* Methods of the participants' selection and recruitment
* Was the recruitment strategy relevant to the research question?
* Was the sampling strategy justified?
* Was the sampling purposive/ theoretical?
* Was it a convenience sample?
* Ths inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study


'''Section B''' is around the results. What are they? There are questions in the checklist to think about:               
=== Data Collection ===
Were the data collection methods appropriate for research objectives and settings? this involves an in-depth analysis of the methods and how did it influence the findings?


1-Ethical considerations. Mainly looking into the details of recruitment and involving participants and whether ethical standards were maintained and kept. For example, does it talk about informed consent? Do the authors talk about a participant information leaflet? Do they talk about an opportunity for participants to pose any questions? Also looking into whether the authors discussed any particular issues raised by the study, for example, the effects of the study and how they were handled particularly when a sensitive topic is explored. How did they handle participants becoming distressed or experienced discomfort?               
The study should justify the data collection method used to meet the criteria of the research question <ref name=":1" />


2- Clarity and transparency of data analysis. The steps that were taken into the process and making sure they weren't biased. Looking into the in-depth description of the analysis process? Types of analysis,               
Data saturation is the point at which new information or themes stop to emerge. This is often under-reported by researchers in qualitative research<ref name=":1" />.     


The data that is presented, how was it selected from the original sample? To demonstrate the analysis process. Is there enough data to support the findings? So, for example, if we have a theme and I say that most men with prostate cancer reported fear of recurrence around their condition. But I only give one quote to support that. Is that enough? You usually need to have sufficient data, within reason. You also need to consider as the reader that qualitative papers can be quite lengthy, where the results section is quite vast often because you are really going in-depth and there's a lot of quotes and things. So, sometimes, it's possible that the authors mightn't have had enough space to put in lots and lots of quotes. So while we aren't looking for, you know, a quote from every single participant or most participants to support that theme, we do want, you know, two or three quotes, maybe that support our findings that we're claiming.                               
=== Data Analysis ===
'''Characteristics of proper data analysis:'''
* Transparency in the analysis and interpretations
* Uses a systematic approach
* Discusses contradicted data and divergent findings
* Multiple coding
* Credibility of results
* Justified conclusion


3- Contradicting data. There will often be some contradictory data that arises from the research and that needs to be recorded for clarity and transparency with the balance to discuss both sides.                                
=== Reflexivity ===
Reflexivity is self-awareness of one’s role in the research process when a researcher reflects on their own position within the research and they consider their own biases. [http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf COREQ] is a checklist of the criteria for authors where there is a whole section dedicated to reflexivity<ref name=":1" />.


4- Did the researchers consider other opinions without bias. a third party could be involved to eliminate the bias of research and reflect reflexivity                                 
It is unlikely that a researcher would remain completely neutral towards a topic with no opinion or viewpoint towards it at all. Reflexivity is sometimes confused with reflection. Hibbert et al <ref>Hibbert P, Coupland C, MacIntosh R. Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2010 May 11.</ref> offer a useful distinction between the two terms, suggesting that reflection is like a mirror image that gives the opportunity to observe and examine our ways of doing. Reflexivity, on the other hand, involves thinking about our experiences and questioning our ways of doing.                               


5-Clear statement about the results of the findings. The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature.  Do they critically analyse their findings in the context of different populations, different settings, in the context of research, practice, policy in the context of the evidence base that's out there?                                
=== Transferability ===
Could the results of the study be transferred or applied to the practice?


6- The credibility of the findings. Credibility is one of four domains of Lincoln and Guba's evaluative criteria. The four criteria are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.                                  
Transferability refers to the extent that the findings of a particular qualitative study can be applied to other situations. This should be reflected in the large and variant sample size, depending on the research question.<ref>Probyn J, Howarth M, Maz J. The ‘middle bit’: how to appraise qualitative research. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 2016 May 2;11(5):248-54.</ref>


Lincoln and Guba<ref>Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).</ref> suggested that in order to evaluate the worth of a study, its trustworthiness needs to be established. Trustworthiness, they suggest, involves establishing credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.                                 
=== Clarity and transparency of data analysis ===
By looking into the steps n to ensure the study is clear of bias through looking into:
* The in-depth description and the type of analysis
* How the data were elected from the original sample?                                 
* Is there enough data to support the findings? In qualitative research that might be in the form of quotes<ref name=":1" />                               


Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of the findings? One thing to think about is triangulation, for example, looking at different cohorts who have their own experiences of a phenomenon, but from a different viewpoint. An example, looking at facilitators and barriers to return to work after Breast Cancer diagnosis. Including different cohorts such as women who've had breast cancer, employers, healthcare professionals. partners or colleagues, etc.To get different viewpoints and that triangulation is what supports the findings and helps to come into a conclusion.                                 
=== Ethics ===
 
Components of the ethical research relationship<ref name=":0" />
Triangulation can be also achieved by using a number of different methods.                                 
* Acknowledgment of bias
 
* Rigour
Respondent validation. also known as member checking. Checking the analysis to ensure the conclusion is not just an analysis of your interview and ensures a fair representation of the findings.                                                                     
* Rapport and managing distress
 
* Respect for autonomy
7-How valuable is this research? Is it applicable or practical to apply on practice, research, policy, to a different population? Looking into the authors' discussion of the contribution of the study to the existing body of knowledge or how does the study contribute to our understanding? Are there new areas of research identified? And also did the author discuss whether findings can be transferred to other contexts or populations or settings. in other words, checking the transferability of the research.    
* Confidentiality
* Avoidance of exploitation (being aware of power relationships    


the table is adapted from [https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance Cochrane library supplemental handbook guidance]<ref>Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available from URL <nowiki>http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance</nowiki></ref>   
the table is adapted from [https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance Cochrane library supplemental handbook guidance]<ref>Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available from URL <nowiki>http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance</nowiki></ref>   

Revision as of 01:00, 2 November 2020

Original Editor - Mariam Hashem

Top Contributors - Mariam Hashem, Kim Jackson, Ewa Jaraczewska, Mandy Roscher and Tarina van der Stockt  

Introduction[edit | edit source]

Qualitative research aims to study things in their natural setting to make sense of a phenomenon in terms of meanings people bring to them[1][2] Qualitative research involves the studied use of a variety of methods – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts [3]

Interpreting a qualitative research paper is an analysis of the quality of the material. It allows you to understand the reliability of the research and the construction of the paper[4].

Characteristics of qualitative research[5]:

  • Explores meanings
  • Achkowleges the researcher’s point of view (reflexivity)
  • Uses interpretative methods of analysis
  • Iterative process
  • Contextual: concerned with the individual's perspective
  • Inductive

Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research[edit | edit source]

The qualitative researchers must[5]:

  • Eliminate subjectivity
  • Acknowledge their relationship with the study/participants/data and question implications on study findings
  • Discuss varied viewpoints to gain a greater range of perspectives
  • Examine deviant participants and multiple coding that challenge assumptions

Trustworthiness or rigor of a study refers to the degree of confidence in data, interpretation, and methods used to ensure the quality of a study. Researchers should discuss the methods and procedures necessary for a study to be considered credible [6]

Techniques for imposing rigor[5][7]:

  • Triangulation: is defined as the use of varied methods, data sources, and multiple researchers
  • Reflexivity: refers to the position of the researchers in relation to the research and their interaction with the participants
  • Multiple coding: refers to the use of independent researchers, calculate inter-rater reliability and idea generation
  • Respondent validation: involving participants to give their opinion and interpretations to provide an overview and generate further data
  • Deviant case analysis: exploring participants who might seem to be deviant from the norm and involve them in the study

Step by Step Guide to Interpret A Qualitative Research Paper[edit | edit source]

The CASP is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists which are often used in health research and cover many research methods, including qualitative research. They are designed to prompt the reader to reflect on different aspects of a research paper and are typically structured around three core domains asking[4]:

  1. The validity of the results
  2. The findings of the study
  3. The transferability

Analyzing the Introduction[edit | edit source]

The research introduction should give the context and reflect the importance of the research question leading up to the rationale of the research. It should also discuss the gap in the area that's been researched with the angle of focus.

Previous research should also be discussed and a highlight on similarities and limitations to explain why this research should take place and it's significant to find answers[4],

When interpreting the introduction, a good question to ask is whether the use of qualitative research was appropriate for this type of study or not? Qualitative methods are used when illuminating some actions or subjective experiences of participants or looking to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon.

Questions to ask when interpreting the research question:

  • Is there a clear statement of the aims of the study?
  • What are the goals of the study?
  • What was the rationale for this research?
  • How relevant is this?
  • Is the research question clearly formulated? Is it important?

Section B is around the results. What are they? There are questions in the checklist to think about:

3- Contradicting data. There will often be some contradictory data that arises from the research and that needs to be recorded for clarity and transparency with the balance to discuss both sides.

4- Did the researchers consider other opinions without bias. a third party could be involved to eliminate the bias of research and reflect reflexivity

5-Clear statement about the results of the findings. The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature. Do they critically analyse their findings in the context of different populations, different settings, in the context of research, practice, policy in the context of the evidence base that's out there?

6- The credibility of the findings. Credibility is one of four domains of Lincoln and Guba's evaluative criteria. The four criteria are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Lincoln and Guba[8] suggested that in order to evaluate the worth of a study, its trustworthiness needs to be established. Trustworthiness, they suggest, involves establishing credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of the findings? One thing to think about is triangulation, for example, looking at different cohorts who have their own experiences of a phenomenon, but from a different viewpoint. An example, looking at facilitators and barriers to return to work after Breast Cancer diagnosis. Including different cohorts such as women who've had breast cancer, employers, healthcare professionals. partners or colleagues, etc.To get different viewpoints and that triangulation is what supports the findings and helps to come into a conclusion.

Triangulation can be also achieved by using a number of different methods.

Respondent validation. also known as member checking. Checking the analysis to ensure the conclusion is not just an analysis of your interview and ensures a fair representation of the findings.

7-How valuable is this research? Is it applicable or practical to apply on practice, research, policy, to a different population? Looking into the authors' discussion of the contribution of the study to the existing body of knowledge or how does the study contribute to our understanding? Are there new areas of research identified? And also did the author discuss whether findings can be transferred to other contexts or populations or settings. in other words, checking the transferability of the research.

Sample size and participants[edit | edit source]

Check the following[5]:

  • Was the sample used appropriately for its research questions?
  • Methods of the participants' selection and recruitment
  • Was the recruitment strategy relevant to the research question?
  • Was the sampling strategy justified?
  • Was the sampling purposive/ theoretical?
  • Was it a convenience sample?
  • Ths inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study

Data Collection[edit | edit source]

Were the data collection methods appropriate for research objectives and settings? this involves an in-depth analysis of the methods and how did it influence the findings?

The study should justify the data collection method used to meet the criteria of the research question [4]

Data saturation is the point at which new information or themes stop to emerge. This is often under-reported by researchers in qualitative research[4].

Data Analysis[edit | edit source]

Characteristics of proper data analysis:

  • Transparency in the analysis and interpretations
  • Uses a systematic approach
  • Discusses contradicted data and divergent findings
  • Multiple coding
  • Credibility of results
  • Justified conclusion

Reflexivity[edit | edit source]

Reflexivity is self-awareness of one’s role in the research process when a researcher reflects on their own position within the research and they consider their own biases. COREQ is a checklist of the criteria for authors where there is a whole section dedicated to reflexivity[4].

It is unlikely that a researcher would remain completely neutral towards a topic with no opinion or viewpoint towards it at all. Reflexivity is sometimes confused with reflection. Hibbert et al [9] offer a useful distinction between the two terms, suggesting that reflection is like a mirror image that gives the opportunity to observe and examine our ways of doing. Reflexivity, on the other hand, involves thinking about our experiences and questioning our ways of doing.

Transferability[edit | edit source]

Could the results of the study be transferred or applied to the practice?

Transferability refers to the extent that the findings of a particular qualitative study can be applied to other situations. This should be reflected in the large and variant sample size, depending on the research question.[10]

Clarity and transparency of data analysis[edit | edit source]

By looking into the steps n to ensure the study is clear of bias through looking into:

  • The in-depth description and the type of analysis
  • How the data were elected from the original sample?
  • Is there enough data to support the findings? In qualitative research that might be in the form of quotes[4]

Ethics[edit | edit source]

Components of the ethical research relationship[5]

  • Acknowledgment of bias
  • Rigour
  • Rapport and managing distress
  • Respect for autonomy
  • Confidentiality
  • Avoidance of exploitation (being aware of power relationships

the table is adapted from Cochrane library supplemental handbook guidance[11]

Aspect Qualitative Term Quantitative Term
Truth value Credibility Internal Validity
Applicability Transferability External Validity or generalisibility
Consistency Dependability Reliability
Neutrality Confirmability Objectivity

Assessing Credibility: Credibility evaluates whether or not the representation of

data fits the views of the participants studied, whether the findings hold true.

Evaluation techniques include: having outside auditors or participants validate

findings (member checks), peer debriefing, attention to negative cases,

independent analysis of data by more than one researcher, verbatim quotes,

persistent observation etc.

 Assessing Transferability: Transferability evaluates whether research findings

are transferable to other specific settings.

Evaluation techniques include: providing details of the study participants to

enable readers to evaluate for which target groups the study provides valuable

information, providing contextual background information, demographics, the

provision of thick description about both the sending and the receiving context

etc.

 Assessing Dependability: Dependability evaluates whether the process of

research is logical, traceable and clearly documented, particularly on the methods

chosen and the decisions made by the researchers.

Evaluation techniques include: peer review, debriefing, audit trails, triangulation

in the context of the use of different methodological approaches to look at the

topic of research, reflexivity to keep a self-critical account of the research process,

calculation of inter-rater agreements etc.

 Assessing Confirmability: Confirmability evaluates the extent to which findings

are qualitatively confirmable through the analysis being grounded in the data and

through examination of the audit trail.

Evaluation techniques include: assessing the effects of the researcher during all

steps of the research process, reflexivity, providing background information on

the researcher’s background, education, perspective, school of thought etc.

Other Checklists:

QARI software developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute,

Quality Framework UK Cabinet Office

Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies by Salford University

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Denkin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. 1994. 
  2. ↑ Yates J, Leggett T. Qualitative research: An introduction. Radiologic technology. 2016 Nov 1;88(2):225-31.
  3. ↑ Aspers P, Corte U. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology. 2019 Jun 1;42(2):139-60.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Algeo N. Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper. Physioplus Course 2020
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Samsi K. Critical appraisal of qualitative research. Lecture, from King’s College London. 2012.
  6. ↑ Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing. 2016 Nov 1;25(6):435-7.
  7. ↑ Luciani M, Campbell KA, Whitmore C, Di Mauro S, Jack SM. How to critically appraise a qualitative health research study. Professioni infermieristiche. 2020 Apr 15;72(4).
  8. ↑ Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).
  9. ↑ Hibbert P, Coupland C, MacIntosh R. Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2010 May 11.
  10. ↑ Probyn J, Howarth M, Maz J. The ‘middle bit’: how to appraise qualitative research. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 2016 May 2;11(5):248-54.
  11. ↑ Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available from URL http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/index.php?title=Interpreting_a_Qualitative_Research_Paper&oldid=258281"