Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations

Abstract

PURPOSE We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria. METHODSWe identifi ed published journal articles discussing criteria for rigorous research using standard search strategies then examined reference sections of relevant journal articles to identify books and book chapters on this topic. A cross-publication content analysis allowed us to identify criteria and understand the beliefs that shape them. RESULTSSeven criteria for good qualitative research emerged: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of refl exivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verifi cation or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the fi rst 4 quality dimensions. On the last 3, important divergent perspectives were observed in how these criteria should be applied to qualitative research, with differences based on the paradigm embraced by the authors. CONCLUSIONQualitative research is not a unifi ed fi eld. Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts and are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria rather than those relevant to the particular qualitative approach proposed or reported. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of this tendency and educate health care researchers about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research from within the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges.

Assessing quality with qualitative research

“…A clearly articulated research purpose should drive the study design, execution, analysis, and presentation. [7][8][9][10][11] In addition, qualitative research should be ethical, important, clearly and coherently articulated, and use rigorous methods for data collection and analysis, 10 all standards that the article published in this issue appears to have met. Finally, validity is an essential characteristic of high-quality qualitative research.…”

“…12 Based on this view, the purpose of science is to engage deeply in phenomena, to capture and preserve empirical material relevant to the phenomena of interest, and to construct understanding based on individual interpretations of the empirical material and dialogue between engaged parties. 10 Rather than attempt to expunge bias, constructivists either harness investigator bias (the investigator is seen as an instrument of data collection) or manage bias through active reflection. 7,10 A priori hypotheses are constructed, not to be tested quantitatively, but to define pre-existing bias clearly and to serve as a starting point for the reflective process.…”

“…10 Rather than attempt to expunge bias, constructivists either harness investigator bias (the investigator is seen as an instrument of data collection) or manage bias through active reflection. 7,10 A priori hypotheses are constructed, not to be tested quantitatively, but to define pre-existing bias clearly and to serve as a starting point for the reflective process.…”

“…Un objectif de recherche clairement articulé devrait être à l'origine de la conception de l'étude, de son exécution, de son analyse et de sa présentation. [7][8][9][10][11] De plus, une recherche qualitative se doit d'être déontologique, importante, articulée de façon claire et cohérente, et d'utiliser des méthodes rigoureuses de collecte et d'analyse des données 10 -des normes que l'article publié ici semble avoir respectées. Enfin, la validité constitue un élément essentiel d'une recherche qualitative de bonne qualité.…”

“…12 Si l'on se fonde sur ce point de vue, l'objectif de la science est de s'immerger dans les phénomènes, de saisir et de conserver du matériel empirique pertinent aux phénomènes à l'étude, et de construire une compréhension qui s'appuie sur les interprétations individuelles de ce matériel empirique et le dialogue entre les parties impliquées. 10 Plutôt que d'essayer d'effacer un biais, les constructivistes vont soit exploiter le biais du chercheur (le chercheur est perçu comme un instrument de collecte de données) ou gérer le biais par une réflexion active. 7,10 Des hypothèses a priori sont construites non pas dans le but d'être testées quantitativement, mais afin de clairement définir le biais préexistant et servir de point de départ au processus réflexif.…”