Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:
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 <ref>Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing. 2016 Nov 1;25(6):435-7.</ref>
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 <ref>Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing. 2016 Nov 1;25(6):435-7.</ref>


Lincoln and Guba<ref>Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).</ref> suggested that the trustworthiness of a study depends on credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of the findings of a particular study? Lincoln and Guba<ref>Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).</ref> suggested that the trustworthiness of a study depends on credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.


This table was adopted 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>
This table was adopted 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>
Line 77: Line 77:
* 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?                                    
 
'''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.                                                                     
 
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 ===
=== Sample size and participants ===
Line 138: Line 120:
* How the data were elected from the original sample?                                   
* 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" />                                 
* Is there enough data to support the findings? In qualitative research that might be in the form of quotes<ref name=":1" />                                 
The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature<ref name=":1" />. 


=== Ethics ===
=== Ethics ===
Line 148: Line 131:
* Avoidance of exploitation (being aware of power relationships   
* Avoidance of exploitation (being aware of power relationships   


Assessing Credibility: Credibility evaluates whether or not the representation of
=== Other Checklists: ===
 
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:
 
[https://ppw.kuleuven.be/mesrg/seminars-and-events/three-day-systematic-review-workshop-quantitative-and-qualitative-approaches-1/sr-2012-course-materials/sr-2012-day-3/meta-aggregation.pptx QARI software developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute],  
[https://ppw.kuleuven.be/mesrg/seminars-and-events/three-day-systematic-review-workshop-quantitative-and-qualitative-approaches-1/sr-2012-course-materials/sr-2012-day-3/meta-aggregation.pptx QARI software developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute],  


Revision as of 01:06, 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]

Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of the findings of a particular study? Lincoln and Guba[7] suggested that the trustworthiness of a study depends on credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

This table was adopted from Cochrane library supplemental handbook guidance[8]

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

Techniques for imposing rigor[5][9]:

  • 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?

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 [10] 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.[11]

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]

The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature[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

Other Checklists:[edit | edit source]

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 4.7 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. ↑ Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).
  8. ↑ 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
  9. ↑ 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).
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ 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.
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/index.php?title=Interpreting_a_Qualitative_Research_Paper&oldid=258283"