Log in using your username and password

  • Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
  • Latest content
  • Current issue
  • Write for Us
  • BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

  • Volume 22, Issue 1
  • How to appraise qualitative research
  • Article Text
  • Article info
  • Citation Tools
  • Rapid Responses
  • Article metrics

Download PDF

  • Calvin Moorley 1 ,
  • Xabi Cathala 2
  • 1 Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
  • 2 Institute of Vocational Learning , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
  • Correspondence to Dr Calvin Moorley, Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK; Moorleyc{at}lsbu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2018-103044

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

In order to make a decision about implementing evidence into practice, nurses need to be able to critically appraise research. Nurses also have a professional responsibility to maintain up-to-date practice. 1 This paper provides a guide on how to critically appraise a qualitative research paper.

What is qualitative research?

  • View inline

Useful terms

Some of the qualitative approaches used in nursing research include grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study (can lend itself to mixed methods) and narrative analysis. The data collection methods used in qualitative research include in depth interviews, focus groups, observations and stories in the form of diaries or other documents. 3

Authenticity

Title, keywords, authors and abstract.

In a previous paper, we discussed how the title, keywords, authors’ positions and affiliations and abstract can influence the authenticity and readability of quantitative research papers, 4 the same applies to qualitative research. However, other areas such as the purpose of the study and the research question, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, sampling and methodology also need consideration when appraising a qualitative paper.

Purpose and question

The topic under investigation in the study should be guided by a clear research question or a statement of the problem or purpose. An example of a statement can be seen in table 2 . Unlike most quantitative studies, qualitative research does not seek to test a hypothesis. The research statement should be specific to the problem and should be reflected in the design. This will inform the reader of what will be studied and justify the purpose of the study. 5

Example of research question and problem statement

An appropriate literature review should have been conducted and summarised in the paper. It should be linked to the subject, using peer-reviewed primary research which is up to date. We suggest papers with a age limit of 5–8 years excluding original work. The literature review should give the reader a balanced view on what has been written on the subject. It is worth noting that for some qualitative approaches some literature reviews are conducted after the data collection to minimise bias, for example, in grounded theory studies. In phenomenological studies, the review sometimes occurs after the data analysis. If this is the case, the author(s) should make this clear.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Most authors use the terms theoretical and conceptual frameworks interchangeably. Usually, a theoretical framework is used when research is underpinned by one theory that aims to help predict, explain and understand the topic investigated. A theoretical framework is the blueprint that can hold or scaffold a study’s theory. Conceptual frameworks are based on concepts from various theories and findings which help to guide the research. 6 It is the researcher’s understanding of how different variables are connected in the study, for example, the literature review and research question. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks connect the researcher to existing knowledge and these are used in a study to help to explain and understand what is being investigated. A framework is the design or map for a study. When you are appraising a qualitative paper, you should be able to see how the framework helped with (1) providing a rationale and (2) the development of research questions or statements. 7 You should be able to identify how the framework, research question, purpose and literature review all complement each other.

There remains an ongoing debate in relation to what an appropriate sample size should be for a qualitative study. We hold the view that qualitative research does not seek to power and a sample size can be as small as one (eg, a single case study) or any number above one (a grounded theory study) providing that it is appropriate and answers the research problem. Shorten and Moorley 8 explain that three main types of sampling exist in qualitative research: (1) convenience (2) judgement or (3) theoretical. In the paper , the sample size should be stated and a rationale for how it was decided should be clear.

Methodology

Qualitative research encompasses a variety of methods and designs. Based on the chosen method or design, the findings may be reported in a variety of different formats. Table 3 provides the main qualitative approaches used in nursing with a short description.

Different qualitative approaches

The authors should make it clear why they are using a qualitative methodology and the chosen theoretical approach or framework. The paper should provide details of participant inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as recruitment sites where the sample was drawn from, for example, urban, rural, hospital inpatient or community. Methods of data collection should be identified and be appropriate for the research statement/question.

Data collection

Overall there should be a clear trail of data collection. The paper should explain when and how the study was advertised, participants were recruited and consented. it should also state when and where the data collection took place. Data collection methods include interviews, this can be structured or unstructured and in depth one to one or group. 9 Group interviews are often referred to as focus group interviews these are often voice recorded and transcribed verbatim. It should be clear if these were conducted face to face, telephone or any other type of media used. Table 3 includes some data collection methods. Other collection methods not included in table 3 examples are observation, diaries, video recording, photographs, documents or objects (artefacts). The schedule of questions for interview or the protocol for non-interview data collection should be provided, available or discussed in the paper. Some authors may use the term ‘recruitment ended once data saturation was reached’. This simply mean that the researchers were not gaining any new information at subsequent interviews, so they stopped data collection.

The data collection section should include details of the ethical approval gained to carry out the study. For example, the strategies used to gain participants’ consent to take part in the study. The authors should make clear if any ethical issues arose and how these were resolved or managed.

The approach to data analysis (see ref  10 ) needs to be clearly articulated, for example, was there more than one person responsible for analysing the data? How were any discrepancies in findings resolved? An audit trail of how the data were analysed including its management should be documented. If member checking was used this should also be reported. This level of transparency contributes to the trustworthiness and credibility of qualitative research. Some researchers provide a diagram of how they approached data analysis to demonstrate the rigour applied ( figure 1 ).

  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Example of data analysis diagram.

Validity and rigour

The study’s validity is reliant on the statement of the question/problem, theoretical/conceptual framework, design, method, sample and data analysis. When critiquing qualitative research, these elements will help you to determine the study’s reliability. Noble and Smith 11 explain that validity is the integrity of data methods applied and that findings should accurately reflect the data. Rigour should acknowledge the researcher’s role and involvement as well as any biases. Essentially it should focus on truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. 11 The authors should discuss if they used triangulation (see table 2 ) to develop the best possible understanding of the phenomena.

Themes and interpretations and implications for practice

In qualitative research no hypothesis is tested, therefore, there is no specific result. Instead, qualitative findings are often reported in themes based on the data analysed. The findings should be clearly linked to, and reflect, the data. This contributes to the soundness of the research. 11 The researchers should make it clear how they arrived at the interpretations of the findings. The theoretical or conceptual framework used should be discussed aiding the rigour of the study. The implications of the findings need to be made clear and where appropriate their applicability or transferability should be identified. 12

Discussions, recommendations and conclusions

The discussion should relate to the research findings as the authors seek to make connections with the literature reviewed earlier in the paper to contextualise their work. A strong discussion will connect the research aims and objectives to the findings and will be supported with literature if possible. A paper that seeks to influence nursing practice will have a recommendations section for clinical practice and research. A good conclusion will focus on the findings and discussion of the phenomena investigated.

Qualitative research has much to offer nursing and healthcare, in terms of understanding patients’ experience of illness, treatment and recovery, it can also help to understand better areas of healthcare practice. However, it must be done with rigour and this paper provides some guidance for appraising such research. To help you critique a qualitative research paper some guidance is provided in table 4 .

Some guidance for critiquing qualitative research

  • ↵ Nursing and Midwifery Council . The code: Standard of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives . 2015 https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf ( accessed 21 Aug 18 ).
  • Barrett D ,
  • Cathala X ,
  • Shorten A ,

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

  • Regular Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 18 September 2021
  • Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

64k Accesses

19 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?

Malin Eriksson, Mehdi Ghazinour & Anne Hammarström

criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

Sampling Techniques for Quantitative Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

figure 2

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Qualitative research
  • Evaluative criteria
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

  • 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
  • PMID: 16114192
  • DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

Publication types

  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Research Design
  • Review Literature as Topic

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Ann Fam Med
  • v.6(4); 2008 Jul

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

Deborah j. cohen.

Department of Family Medicine, Research Division, University of Medicine and Dentistry, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, New Jersey

Benjamin F. Crabtree

PURPOSE We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria.

METHODS We identified 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.

RESULTS Seven 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 reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the first 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.

CONCLUSION Qualitative research is not a unified field. 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.

INTRODUCTION

Until the 1960s, the scientific method—which involves hypothesis testing through controlled experimentation—was the predominant approach to research in the natural, physical, and social sciences. In the social sciences, proponents of qualitative research argued that the scientific method was not an appropriate model for studying people (eg, Cicourel, 1 Schutz, 2 , 3 and Garfinkel 4 ), and such methods as observation and interviewing would lead to a better understanding of social life in its naturally occurring, uncontrolled form. Biomedical and clinical research, with deep historical roots in quantitative methods, particularly observational epidemiology 5 and clinical trials, 6 was on the periphery of this debate. It was not until the late 1960s and 1970s that anthropologists and sociologists began introducing qualitative research methods into the health care field. 4 , 7 – 14

Since that time, qualitative research methods have been increasingly used in clinical and health care research. Today, both journals (eg, Qualitative Health Research ) and books are dedicated to qualitative methods in health care, 15 – 17 and a vast literature describes basic approaches of qualitative research, 18 , 19 as well as specific information on focus groups, 20 – 23 qualitative content analysis, 24 observation and ethnography, 25 – 27 interviewing, 28 – 32 studying stories 33 , 34 and conversation, 35 – 37 doing case study, 38 , 39 and action research. 40 , 41 Publications describe strategies for sampling, 42 – 45 analyzing, reporting, 45 – 49 and combining qualitative and quantitative methods 50 ; and a growing body of health care research reports findings from studies using in-depth interviews, 51 – 54 focus groups, 55 – 57 observation, 58 – 60 and a range of mixed-methods designs. 61 – 63

As part of a project to evaluate health care improvements, we identified a need to help health care researchers, particularly those with limited experience in qualitative research, evaluate and understand qualitative methodologies. Our goals were to review and synthesize published criteria for “good” qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria that would be helpful to researchers, reviewers, editors, and funding agencies. In what follows, we identify the standards of good qualitative research articulated in the health care literature and describe the lessons we learned as part of this process.

A series of database searches were conducted to identify published journal articles, books, and book chapters offering criteria for evaluating and identifying rigorous qualitative research.

Data Collection and Management

With the assistance of a librarian, a search was conducted in December 2005 using the Institute for Science (ISI) Web of Science database, which indexes a wide range of journals and publications from 1980 to the present. Supplemental Appendix 1, available online-only at http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/6/4/331/DC1 , describes our search strategy. This search yielded a preliminary database of 4,499 publications. Citation information, abstracts, and the number of times the article was cited by other authors were exported to a Microsoft Excel file and an Endnote database.

After manually reviewing the Excel database, we found and removed a large number of irrelevant publications in the physical and environmental sciences (eg, forestry, observational studies of crystals), and further sorted the remaining publications to identify publications in health care. Among this subset, we read abstracts and further sorted publications into (1) publications about qualitative methods, and (2) original research using qualitative methods. For the purposes of this analysis, we reviewed in detail only publications in the first category. We read each publication in this group and further subdivided the group into publications that (1) articulated criteria for evaluating qualitative research, (2) addressed techniques for doing a particular qualitative method (eg, interviewing, focus groups), or (3) described a qualitative research strategy (eg, sampling, analysis). Subsequent analyses focused on the first category; however, among publications in the second category, a number of articles addressed the issue of quality in, for example, case study, 39 interviewing, 28 focus groups, 22 , 64 , 65 discourse, 66 and narrative 67 , 68 research that we excluded as outside the scope of our analysis.

Books and book chapters could not be searched in the same way because a database cataloging these materials did not exist. Additionally, few books on qualitative methods are written specifically for health care researchers, so we would not be able to determine whether a book was or was not contributing to the discourse in this field. To overcome these challenges, we used a snowball technique, identifying and examining books and book chapters cited in the journal articles retrieved. Through this process, a number of additional relevant journal articles were identified as frequently cited but published in non–health care or nonindexed journals (eg, online journals). These articles were included in our analysis.

We read journal articles and book chapters and prepared notes recording the evaluative criteria that author(s) posited and the world view or belief system in which criteria were embedded, if available. When criteria were attributed to another work, this information was noted. Books were reviewed and analyzed differently. We read an introductory chapter or two to understand the authors’ beliefs about research and prepared summary notes. Because most books contained a section discussing evaluative criteria, we identified and read this section, and prepared notes in the manner described above for journal articles and book chapters.

An early observation was that not all publications offered explicit criteria. Publications offering explicit evaluative criteria were treated as a group. Publications by the same author were analyzed and determined to be sufficiently similar to cluster. We examined evaluative criteria across publications, listing similar criteria in thematic clusters (eg, importance of research, conducting ethically sound research), identifying the central principle or theme of the cluster, and reviewing and refining clusters. Publications that discussed evaluative criteria for qualitative research but did not offer explicit criteria were analyzed separately.

Preliminary findings were synthesized into a Web site for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ( http://www.qualres.org ). This Web site was reviewed by Mary Dixon-Woods, PhD, a health care researcher with extensive expertise in qualitative research, whose feedback regarding the implications of endorsing or positing a unified set of evaluative criteria encouraged our reflection and influenced this report.

We identified 29 journal articles 19 , 26 , 45 , 69 – 94 and 16 books or book chapters 95 – 110 that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Supplemental Appendix 2, available online-only at http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/6/4/331/DC1 , contains a table listing citation information and criteria posited in these works. An additional 29 publications were identified that did not offer explicit criteria but informed discourse on this topic and our analysis. 111 – 139

Seven evaluative criteria were identified: (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 reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. There was general agreement observed across publications on the first 4 quality dimensions; however, on the last 3 criteria, disagreement was observed in how the concepts of researcher bias, validity, and reliability should be applied to qualitative research. Differences in perspectives were grounded in paradigm debates regarding the nature of knowledge and reality, with some arguing from an interpretivist perspective and others from a more pragmatic realist perspective. Three major paradigms and their implications are described in Table 1 ▶ .

Common Paradigms in Health Care Research

Fundamental Criteria

It was widely agreed that qualitative research should be ethical, be important, be clearly and coherently articulated, and use appropriate and rigorous methods. Conducting ethically sound research involved carrying out research in a way that was respectful, 69 humane, 95 and honest, 77 and that embodied the values of empathy, collaboration, and service. 77 , 84 Research was considered important when it was pragmatically and theoretically useful and advanced the current knowledge base. * Clarity and coherence of the research report were criteria emphasizing that the report itself should be concise and provide a clear and adequate description of the research question, background and contextual material, study design (eg, study participants, how they were chosen, how data are collected and analyzed), and rationale for methodological choices. Description of the data should be unexaggerated, and the relationship between data and interpretation should be understandable. †

Researcher Bias

The majority of publications discussed issues of researcher bias, recognizing researchers’ preconceptions, motivations, and ways of seeing shape the qualitative research process. (It should be noted there is ample evidence to suggest researcher motivations and preconceptions shape all research.) 140 One perspective (interpretivist) viewed researcher subjectivity as “something used actively and creatively through the research process” rather than as a problem of bias. 72 A hallmark of good research was understanding and reporting relevant preconceptions through reflexive processing (ie, reflective journal-keeping). ‡ A second perspective (realist) viewed researcher bias as a problem affecting the trustworthiness, truthfulness, or validity of the account. In addition to understanding researchers’ motivations and preconceptions, value and rigor were enhanced by controlling bias through techniques to verify and confirm findings, as discussed in more detail below. * Thus, whereas all publications agreed that researcher bias was an important consideration, the approach for managing bias was quite different depending on the paradigm grounding the work.

A number of publications framed the concept of validity in the context of quantitative research, where it typically refers to the “best available approximation to the truth or falsity of propositions.” 142 (p37) Internal validity refers to truth about claims made regarding the relationship between 2 variables. External validity refers to the extent to which we can generalize findings. Across publications, different ideas emerged.

Understanding the concept of validity requires understanding beliefs about the nature of reality. One may believe that there can be multiple ways of understanding social life and reality, even multiple realities. This view of reality emerges from an interpretivist perspective. Hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research include producing a rich, substantive account with strong evidence for inferences and conclusions and then reporting the lived experiences of those observed and their perspectives on social reality, while recognizing that these could be multiple and complex and that the researcher is intertwined in the portrayal of this experience. The goal is understanding and providing a meaningful account of the complex perspectives and realities studied. †

In contrast, research may be based on the belief that there is one reality that can be observed, and this reality is knowable through the process of research, albeit sometimes imperfectly. This perspective is typically associated with a positivist paradigm that underlies quantitative research, but also with the realist paradigm found in some qualitative research. Qualitative research based on this view tends to use alternative terms for validity (eg, adequacy, trustworthiness, accuracy, credibility) and emphasizes striving for truth through the qualitative research process, for example, by having outside auditors or research participants validate findings. An important dimension of good qualitative research, therefore, is plausibility and accuracy. ‡

Verification or Reliability

Divergent perspectives were observed on the appropriateness of applying the concept of verifiability or reliability when evaluating qualitative research. As is validity, this concept is rooted in quantitative and experimental methods and refers to the extent to which measures and experimental treatments are standardized and controlled to reduce error and decrease the chance of obtaining differences. 142 Two distinct approaches to evaluating the reliability of qualitative research were articulated. In the first, verification was a process negotiated between researchers and readers, where researchers were responsible for reporting information (eg, data excerpts, how the researcher dealt with tacit knowledge, information about the interpretive process) so readers could discern for themselves the patterns identified and verify the data, its analysis and interpretation. § This interpretivist perspective contrasts with the second, realist, perspective. Rather than leaving the auditing and confirming role to the reader, steps to establish dependability should be built into the research process to repeat and affirm researchers’ observations. In some cases, special techniques, such as member checking, peer review, debriefing, and external audits to achieve reliability, are recommended and posited as hallmarks of quality in qualitative research. || In Table 2 ▶ we provide a brief description of these techniques.

Verification Techniques Used in Qualitative Research

Perspectives on the Value of Criteria

Health care researchers also discuss the usefulness of evaluative criteria. We observed 3 perspectives on the utility of having unified criteria for assessing qualitative research.

One perspective recognized the importance of validity and reliability as criteria for evaluating qualitative research. 132 , 133 Morse et al make the case that without validity and reliability, qualitative research risks being seen as nonscientific and lacking rigor. 88 , 125 Their argument is compelling and suggests reliability and validity should not be evaluated at the end of the project, but should be goals that shape the entire research process, influencing study design, data collection, and analysis choices. A second approach is to view the criteria of validity and reliability as inappropriate for qualitative research, and argue for the development of alternative criteria relevant for assessing qualitative research. *

This position is commonly based on the premise that the theoretical and methodological beliefs informing quantitative research (from whence the criteria of reliability and validity come) are not the same as the methodological and theoretical beliefs informing qualitative research and are, therefore, inappropriate. 136 Cogent criteria for evaluating qualitative research are needed. Without well-defined, agreed-upon, and appropriate standards, qualitative research risks being evaluated by quantitative standards, which can lead to assimilation, preferences for qualitative research that are most compatible with quantitative standards, and rejection of more radical methods that do not conform to quantitative criteria. 94 From this perspective emerged a number of alternative criteria for evaluating qualitative research.

Alternative criteria have been open to criticism. We observed such criticism in publications challenging the recommendation that qualitative research using such techniques as member checking, multiple coding, external audits, and triangulation is more reliable, valid, and of better quality. 72 , 82 , 90 , 91 , 112 , 127 , 143 Authors challenging this recommendation show how techniques such as member checking can be problematic. For example, it does not make sense to ask study participants to check or verify audio-recorded transcribed data. In other situations, study participants asked to check or verify data may not recall what they said or did. Even when study participants recall their responses, there are a number of factors that may account for discrepancies between what participants recall and the researcher’s data and preliminary findings. For instance, the purpose of data analysis is to organize individual statements into themes that produce new, higher-order insights. Individual contributions may not be recognizable to participants, and higher-order insights might not make sense. 82 Similar issues have been articulated about the peer-review and auditing processes 127 , 143 and some uses of triangulation. 130 Thus, alternative criteria for evaluating qualitative research have been posited and criticized on the grounds that such criteria (1) cannot be applied in a formulaic manner; (2) do not necessarily lead to higher-quality research, particularly if these techniques are poorly implemented; and (3) foster the false expectation among evaluators of research that use of one or more of these techniques in a study is a mark of higher quality. 72 , 81 , 90 , 91 , 112 , 123 , 127

A third approach suggests the search for a cogent set of evaluative criteria for qualitative research is misguided. The field of qualitative research is broad and diverse, not lending itself to evaluation by one set of criteria. Instead, researchers need to recognize each study is unique in its theoretical positioning and approach, and different evaluative criteria are needed. To fully understand the scientific quality of qualitative research sometimes requires a deep understanding of the theoretical foundation and the science of the approach. Thus, evaluating the scientific rigor of qualitative research requires learning, understanding, and using appropriate evaluative criteria. 123 , 124 , 135 , 137

There are a number of limitations of this analysis to be acknowledged. First, although we conducted a comprehensive literature review, it is always possible for publications to be missed, particularly with our identification of books and book chapters, which relied on a snowball technique. In addition, relying on publications and works cited within publications to understand the dialogue about rigor in qualitative methods is imperfect. Although these discussions manifest in the literature, they also arise at conferences, grant review sessions, and hallway conversations. One’s views are open to revision (cf, Lincoln’s 103 , 144 ), and relationships with editors and others shape our ideas and whom we cite. In this analysis, we cannot begin to understand these influences.

Our perspectives affect this report. Both authors received doctoral training in qualitative methods in social science disciplines (sociology/communication and anthropology) and have assimilated these values into health care as reviewers, editors, and active participants in qualitative health care studies. Our training shapes our beliefs, so we feel most aligned with interpretivism. This grounding influences how we see qualitative research, as well as the perspectives and voices we examine in this analysis. We have been exposed to a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches for doing qualitative research, which may make us more inclined to notice the generic character of evaluative criteria emerging in the health care community and take note of the potential costs of this approach.

In addition, we use 3 common paradigms—interpretivism, realism, and positivism—in our analysis. It is important to understand that paradigms and debates about paradigms are political and used to argue for credibility and resources in the research community. In this process, underlying views about the nature of knowledge and reality have been simplified, sometimes even dichotomized (interpretivism vs positivism). We recognize our use of these paradigms as an oversimplification and limitation of our work, but one that is appropriate if only because these categories are so widely used in the works we analyze.

Our analysis reveals some common ground has been negotiated with regard to establishing criteria for rigorous qualitative research. It is important to notice that the criteria that have been widely accepted—carrying out ethical research and important research, preparing a clear and coherent research report, and using appropriate and rigorous methods—are applicable to all research. Divergent perspectives were observed in the field with regard to 3 criteria: researcher bias, validity, and verification or reliability. These criteria are more heavily influenced by quantitative and experimental approaches 142 and, not surprisingly, have met with resistance. To understand the implications of these influences, our analysis suggests the utility of examining how these criteria are embedded in beliefs about the nature of knowledge and reality.

Central to the interpretivist paradigm, which historically grounds most qualitative traditions, is the assumption that realities are multiple, fluid, and co-constructed, and knowledge is taken to be negotiated between the observer and participants. From this framework emerge evaluative criteria valuing research that illuminates subjective meanings and understands and articulates multiple ways of seeing a phenomenon. Rich substance and content, clear delineation of the research process, evidence of immersion and self-reflection, and demonstration of the researcher’s way of knowing, particularly with regard to tacit knowledge, are essential features of high-quality research.

In contrast, fundamental to a positivist paradigm, which historically grounds most quantitative approaches, is the assumption that there is a single objective reality and the presumption that this reality is knowable. The realist paradigm softens this belief by suggesting knowledge of reality is always imperfect. Within the realist framework the goal of qualitative research is to strive for attaining truth, and good research is credible, confirmable, dependable, and transferable. Thus, rigorous qualitative research requires more than prolonged engagement, persistent observation, thick description, and negative case analysis, but it should use such techniques as triangulation, external auditing, and member checking to promote attainment of truth or validity through the process of verifying findings.

One reason for the centrality of the realist paradigm in health care research may be its ability to assimilate the values, beliefs, and criteria for rigorous research that emerge from the positivist paradigm. In a community that values biomedical bench research, sees the randomized controlled trial as a reference standard, holds a belief in an objective reality, and values research that is reliable, valid, and generalizable (typically positivist ideals), it is not surprising that realist views with regard to qualitative research have found favor. Unlike interpretivism, realism adopts a philosophy of science not at odds with the commonly held ideals of positivism. By maintaining a belief in an objective reality and positing truth as an ideal qualitative researchers should strive for, realists have succeeded at positioning the qualitative research enterprise as one that can produce research which is valid, reliable, and generalizable, and therefore, of value and import equal to quantitative biomedical research.

Although qualitative research emerging from a realist paradigm may have successfully assimilated into the clinical research community (as it has in other disciplines), it may be at a cost. Qualitative approaches most compatible with traditional values of quantitative research may be most likely to be accepted (published and funded). More radical methods (eg, feminist standpoint research, critical postmodern research), which can make innovative contributions to the field, may be marginalized because they do not fit the evaluative criteria that have emerged in the health care community. 94 , 115 In addition, doing rigorous qualitative research in the way realists prescribe involves using a number of techniques that may foster the appearance of validity and reliability, but can be problematic if inappropriately applied. *

The search for a single set of criteria for good qualitative research is grounded in the assumption that qualitative research is a unified field. 124 , 135 , 137 , 145 Qualitative research is grounded in a range of theoretical frameworks and uses a variety of methodological approaches to guide data collection and analysis. Because most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts, they are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of the 7 criteria for good qualitative research, but also they need to be aware that applying the same standards across all qualitative research is inappropriate. Helping reviewers understand how an unfamiliar qualitative approach should be executed and standards for evaluating quality are essential, because reviewers, even qualitative experts, might not be well-versed in the particular qualitative method being used or proposed. Panel organizers and editors need to recognize that a qualitative expert may have only a very narrow range of expertise. Moreover, some researchers may be so entrenched in the dogma of their own approach that they are unable to value qualitative methods dissimilar from their own. This type of ax grinding harms not only the efforts of qualitative researchers, but the field more generally.

Future work needs to focus on educating health care researchers about the criteria for evaluating qualitative research from within the appropriate theoretical and methodological framework. Although the ideas posited here suggest there may be a connection between how quality is defined and the kind of work published or funded, this assumption is worthy of empirical examination. In addition, the field needs to reflect on the value of qualitative health care research and consider whether we have the space and models for adequately reporting interpretive research in our medical journals.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Mary Dixon-Woods, PhD, for her insightful comments on earlier versions of this work.

Conflicts of interest: none reported

Funding support: Preparation of this report was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (#053512).

* References 26 , 69 , 70 , 73 , 77 , 80 , 94 , 95 , 98 , 106 .

† References 19 , 26 , 69 , 70 , 73 , 75 , 77 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 95 , 107 .

‡ References 19 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 77 , 80 – 82 , 87 , 94 , 103 , 105 .

* References 19 , 45 , 71 , 74 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 87 , 96 , 101 – 106 , 108 , 141 .

† References 69 , 72 , 76 , 77 , 80 – 82 , 89 , 95 , 96 .

‡ References 45 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 86 , 87 , 90 , 91 , 93 , 96 , 98 , 100 – 108 , 141 .

§ References 69 , 70 , 72 , 81 , 82 , 89 , 95 , 109 , 110 .

|| References 19 , 45 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 93 , 96 , 100 – 106 , 108 , 141 .

* References 72 , 81 , 82 , 85 , 94 , 114 , 118 , 129 , 136 .

* References 72 , 81 , 90 , 91 , 112 , 123 , 127 , 145 .

critiquing quantitative research

Critiquing Quantitative Research

Nov 07, 2014

1.2k likes | 4.42k Views

Critiquing Quantitative Research. Cynthia L. Russell, PhD, APRN, BC. There is no conflict of interest in the creation of this education program. Learner Objectives. 1. Describe 2 reasons for evaluating quantitative research. 2. Identify 5 sections of quantitative research reports.

Share Presentation

  • research report
  • study limitations
  • sample size
  • evaluating quantitative research
  • evaluating quantitative research reports

fritz-hester

Presentation Transcript

Critiquing Quantitative Research Cynthia L. Russell, PhD, APRN, BC There is no conflict of interest in the creation of this education program.

Learner Objectives 1. Describe 2 reasons for evaluating quantitative research. 2. Identify 5 sections of quantitative research reports. 3. Discuss the 5 components of the methods section of a quantitative research report.

Reasons for Evaluating Quantitative Research Reports • To determine if the findings can be used in practice • (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003)

Reasons for Evaluating Quantitative Research Reports • To determine the current state of science on a particular topic to direct your next research study

Components of a Quantitative Research Report Quantitative research report components: • -- Introduction/Research problem • -- Review of literature • -- Methods • -- Data analysis • -- Results • -- Discussion • (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003)

Introduction • Describes the background of the problem • Prevalence and/or incidence of the problem • Impact of the problem on patient outcomes • Importance of the problem to health care providers and nurses, in particular • Builds a case for the need for the study • Develops the Research Problem

Research Problem • Broadly defines what needs to be studied • Flows directly from the introduction • Concludes the Introduction section • (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003)

Review of the Literature Summary of pertinent literature Organized and clear Evaluate quality of literature Strengths and weaknesses Organized from broad to specific Identify gaps in literature Need for the study should be clear Discuss theoretical/conceptual framework

Methods Describes the steps used by the researcher to conduct the study Design Sampling plan Instrumentation Procedures Protection of human subjects

Design Describes the plan for carrying out the study Non-experimental designs Types Descriptive Correlational Experimental designs Types Randomized control trials Quasi-experimental designs

Sampling Plan Describes the sample for the study Who will participate How they will be identified Characteristics of the target population (the population to which the findings are generalized) Sample procedure Sample size

Instruments Describes the instruments used to gather the data for the study Researcher should identify which instruments measured which study concepts May involve Interviews Questionnaires Scales Observation Biophysiological measures

Instrument Reliability and Validity • Reliability is the instrument’s ability to consistently measure the concept • Validity is the instrument’s ability to measure the concept that is supposed to measure

Protection of Human Participants • Report should state that Institutional Review Board Approval was obtained • In the Procedure section the report should state that informed consent was obtained

Informed Consent Why Am I Being Approached? Why Is This Study Being Done? How Many People Will Take Part In The Study? What Is Involved in the Study? How Long Will I Be in the Study?

Informed Consent What Are the Risks of the Study? Are There Benefits to Taking Part in the Study? What Other Options Are There? What about Confidentiality? What Are the Costs?

Informed Consent • Will I be Paid for Participating in the Study? • What if I am Injured? • What Are My Rights as a Participant? • Whom Do I Call if I Have Questions or Problems? • Subject’s signature • Signature of Study Representative • If patient is incompetent to give consent, additional steps are taken

Procedure • Recipe for the research process • Sufficient detail should be provided • Should be written clearly and flow logically • All steps of the procedure should be clearly stated

Data Analysis and Results • Can be intimidating • Confirm that the researcher has presented results that clearly answer the proposed research question(s) • Researchers frequently organize this section by research question to facilitate readability

Data Analysis and Results Review the research design Descriptive design should use descriptive statistics such as: Mean, mode, and median (which measure how the data tend to be similar or grouped together) and variance, Standard deviation, Range (which measure how the data tend to be spread out) Correlational design should use correlational statistics such as a correlation coefficient (identifies the strength and the direction of the relationship between two variables. Examples are: Person r Spearman rho.

Discussion • Should clearly flow from the data • Should place the study’s findings in context with what is already known • May be linked back to theoretical or conceptual framework • Author interpretations should be clearly identified as such • Reviewer must determine if the author’s interpretations are justified • Should present study limitations • Should present implications for practice, as appropriate • Should present directions for future research

Study Limitations Common study limitations include: Small sample size Sample limited to one area or one group of people (this decreases generalizability to other areas and other people) Weak designs used such as correlational or quasi-experimental

Checklist for Research Report Evaluation • Research Problem • Is the problem clearly stated? • Is the problem significant? • Review of the Literature • Is the literature summarized? • Is the literature critically evaluated? • Are gaps and inconsistencies in the literature described? • Is the literature current and the review complete? • If presented, is the theoretical or conceptual framework clearly described including concepts and relationships? • Does the problem clearly link to and flow from the theoretical or conceptual framework? • Design • Is the design clearly stated?

Checklist for Research Report Evaluation • Sample • Is the sample clearly identified? • Is it clear how the sample will be obtained? • Is the relationship between the sample and the target population clearly delineated? • Is the rationale for the sample size provided? • Instrumentation • Is it clear which instruments will measure which concepts? • Is the rationale for instrument selection acceptable? • Is the reliability for each instrument described and acceptable? • Is the validity for each instrument described and acceptable? • Procedure • Are sufficient details provided in the procedure? • Is the procedure written clearly? • Does the procedure flow logically? • Are all steps of the procedure clearly stated?

Checklist for Research Report Evaluation Human Participants Protection • Has the researcher provided sufficient protection of human participants? • Data Analysis and Results • Is the data analysis section well organized? • Is the statistical method used for analysis appropriate for the research question(s) and/or hypothesis and level of measurement? • Are tables and graphs clearly labeled? • Do the tables and graphs complement the text?

Checklist for Research Report Evaluation Discussion • Does the discussion clearly flow from the data? • Does the discussion place the study’s findings in context with what is already known? • If a theoretical or conceptual framework is presented, are the nature of the findings discussed in the context of the framework? • If the author presents interpretations of the findings are these clearly distinguished as such? • Are justifications offered for the author’s conclusions? • Are study limitations provided? • Are implications for practice and future research delineated?

Summary • You may see yourself as a novice reviewer and not trust your interpretations. • This is a common concern. • Read, review, and discuss research reports with others to increase your skills.

References • Alderman, S. (1998). Critiquing research for use in clinical nursing practice: A CD-ROM review. Nurse Educator, 23(2), 8. • Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8(1), 77-100. • Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.

References • Beck, C. T. (1990). The research critique: general criteria for evaluating a research report. JOGNN, 19(1), 18-22. • Beyea, S. C. (1998). Critiquing research for use in clinical nursing practice (CD-ROM). Computers in Nursing, 16(1), 16-17. • Brink, P. J., & Wood, M. J. (2001). Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research (5th ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. • Haughey, B.P. (1994). Evaluating quantitative research designs: part 1. Critical Care Nurse, 14(5): 100-2.

References • Haughey, B. P. (1994). Evaluating quantitative research designs: part 2. Critical Care Nurse, 14(6): 69-72. • Holcomb, Z. C. (2002). Interpreting Basic Statistics (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. • Pieper, B. (1993). Basics of critiquing a research article. Journal of ET Nursing, 20, 245-250. • Polit, D., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

References • Polit, D., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins. • Russell, C. L., Brown, K. (2002). The effects of information and support on individuals awaiting transplant. Progress in Transplantation, 12(3), 201-207. • Russell, C. L. (2005). Evaluating quantitative research reports. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 32(1), 61-64.

References • Ryan-Wengar, N. M. (1992). Guidelines for critique of a research report. Heart & Lung, 21(4), 394-401. • Soeken, K. L. (1985). Critiquing research: steps for complete evaluation on an article. AORN Journal, 41(5), 882-893. • Summers, S. (1991). Defining components of the research process needed to conduct and critique studies. Journal of Post Anesthesia Nursing, 6(1), 50-55.

  • More by User

Critiquing Websites:

Critiquing Websites:

Critiquing Websites: First Impressions critique guideline First Impressions Long Term Relationships Concept [ 構想 造意 觀念 ] Themes + Experience + Composition = Concept visual themes Metaphors, references to things or stories that people are already familiar with

904 views • 31 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research

Adequate experimental control Lack of artificiality Basis for comparison Adequate information from the data Uncontaminated data No confounding of relevant variables Representativeness Parsimony. Pretest-posttest control group design Posttest only control group design

588 views • 14 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. March 8. Quiz Assignments Experimental Research Quantitative Research Emotional Intelligence Survey Validity, Reliability, Error Characteristics of Surveys. Laboratory Experiments Artificial – low realism Few extraneous variables High control Low cost

1.29k views • 71 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. Overview. Observational. Definition - Directly observing naturally occurring behavior unobtrusively, typically in the field, but can also take place in laboratory settings Pros

658 views • 16 slides

Summarising and critiquing research papers

Summarising and critiquing research papers

Creating a summary. There is no simple method for summarising a paper - you need to use your judgement to define the key issues.You are trying to discover the key points that the author is making in the paper?Read the paper at least twiceMake sure that you understand what the author is trying to

389 views • 7 slides

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

HYPOTHESES[see pp. 176-179]. I. Defining hypotheses A. Statements posing a relationship between 2 or more variables.B. Usually emerge out of substantial literature review. C. Types of relationships.1. Covariance (correlative)a. Vary together but not causal. b. Can be positive or negati

590 views • 14 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. Descriptive Research. Also called “Survey Research” Describes the way things exist Data collected Test hypothesis Or to classify opinions on issues/topics. Descriptive Research. Most common research Surveys conducted

649 views • 44 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. LeAnne Garland Linda Martin Tony McCullers May Xiong. Image from: http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/ResearchProcess/QuantitativeResearch.htm . Definition.

845 views • 14 slides

Critiquing

Critiquing. 3 Points. Why it’s important Giving Criticism Receiving Criticism. Why. Experience new writing Improves your writing by Focusing on a specific written work of yours Helping you learn by other people’s comments on other people’s works

355 views • 9 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. A Game! How can quantitative research be fun? You’ll see!. Goals for the Game. Choose a button. Each button includes: Points Question When you answer the question correctly, you get the points! You answer incorrectly, you get the points taken away.

218 views • 16 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. Experimental. Experimental Research. Cause and effect relationships are established by manipulating the INDEPENDENT variable(s) and observing the effect on the DEPENDENT variable.

261 views • 18 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. In this lesson, we will deepen our skills in quantitative research methods to: Explain how survey tools can be used to evaluate your campaign’s impact. Describe the value of sample size for your quantitative research and measurement of impact.

724 views • 32 slides

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Reality is ‘out there’ waiting to be captured. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH. Stems from positivism, determinism, materialism and empiricism. POSITIVISM. The universe consists of real, independent phenomena that we can come to know through direct observation.

535 views • 27 slides

Critiquing Research Articles

Critiquing Research Articles

Critiquing Research Articles. For important and highly relevant articles: Introduce the study, say how it exemplifies the point you are discussing Say how the study is similar to yours, in purpose and / or method Report its methodology in detail Critique the methodology

4.39k views • 11 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. Hypothesizing, counting, and reporting. Quantitative Research. Numbers-based – Quantitative research refers to the manipulation of numbers to make claims, provide evidence, describe phenomena, determine relationships, or determine causation.

452 views • 16 slides

Critiquing Qualitative Research

Critiquing Qualitative Research

Critiquing Qualitative Research. Using Five Standards. Standard 1:Descriptive Vividness.

276 views • 11 slides

Quantitative research

Quantitative research

Quantitative research. DEFINITION. Quantitative research is a formal, objective, systematic process in which numerical data are used to obtain information about the world. This research method is used: to describe variables; to examine relationships among variables;

518 views • 41 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. Counting, and reporting. Quantitative Research. Numbers-based – Quantitative research refers to the manipulation of numbers to make claims, provide evidence, describe phenomena, determine relationships, or determine causation.

733 views • 29 slides

Quantitative Research

Pretest-posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design Time Series Design Single Subject Design Multiple Baseline Designs. Survey Research Cross-Sectional Design Longitudinal Survey Designs Trend Study Cohort Study Panel Study. Quantitative Research. Quasi-Experimental Designs.

249 views • 8 slides

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research. SPED 500 Dr. Sandra Beyda. Designs that maximize objectivity by using numbers, statistics, structure, and experimenter control. Modes Experimental mode Non-experimental mode. Quantitative Research. Structure of a Data Based Study. Abstract Introduction Method

297 views • 25 slides

Quantitative Research

567 views • 14 slides

IMAGES

  1. Critiquing Evaluation Criteria for Quantitative Research Artic

    criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

  2. Criteria for critiquing literature

    criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

  3. PPT

    criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

  4. PPT

    criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

  5. Critiquing Evaluation Criteria for Quantitative Research Artic

    criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

  6. Critiquing a research article

    criteria for critiquing a research report slideshare

VIDEO

  1. The Future in Focus

  2. How to Select a Research Topic

  3. Critiquing Research Paper

  4. Research Report_group 3

  5. HOW TO GET GOOD MARKS IN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT REPORT SUBJECT || @shivanipallela ||

  6. Nursing Research/ Crtitique???

COMMENTS

  1. Critiquing research

    1 of 40 Download Now Recommended Research critique Muthu Venkatachalam Utilization of research findings Navjot Kaur Critical analysis of research report Preeti Sood Nonexperimental research design Nursing Path Introduction to Nursing Research Enoch Snowden Research Critique Dr. Senthilvel Vasudevan More Related Content What's hot (20)

  2. PDF Topic 8: How to critique a research paper 1

    1. Use these guidelines to critique your selected research article to be included in your research proposal. You do not need to address all the questions indicated in this guideline, and only include the questions that apply. 2. Prepare your report as a paper with appropriate headings and use APA format 5th edition.

  3. The Research Critique General Criteria for Evaluating a Research Report

    1. , 2. , 3. These suggested questions are not a complete or exhaustive list. Readers are given the opportunity to practice applying the critiquing criteria to this nursing research on women's responses to fetal monitoring.

  4. Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner

    Recommended Citation Abell, Cathy H. and Garret Wright, Dawn M. (2016) "Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner," International Journal of Faith Community Nursing: Vol. 2: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: htp://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijfcn/vol2/iss3/1

  5. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

    J. 2021; 12 (3) 10.36834/cmej.69739 6. Scoping Review. Aims to quickly map a research area, documenting key concepts, sources of evidence, methodologies used. Typically, scoping reviews do not judge the quality of the papers included in the review. They tend to produce descriptive accounts of a topic area.

  6. The research critique. General criteria for evaluating a research report

    Florida Atlantic University, Division of Nursing, Boca Raton 33431. General criteria for evaluating a research report are addressed. This outline of criteria can be used as a guide for nurses in critiquing research studies. A sample research report is summarized followed by a critique of the study. Readers have an opportunity to practice ...

  7. Critical Appraisal of Clinical Research

    Critical appraisal is the course of action for watchfully and systematically examining research to assess its reliability, value and relevance in order to direct professionals in their vital clinical decision making [ 1 ]. Critical appraisal is essential to: Combat information overload; Identify papers that are clinically relevant;

  8. PDF Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research

    Terminology in research can be confusing for the novice research reader where a term like 'random' refers to an organized manner of selecting items or participants, and the word 'significance' is applied to a degree of chance. Thus the aim of this article is to take a step-by-step approach to critiquing research in an attempt to help nurses ...

  9. Critical Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

    There are various methods and steps to critically appraise the randomized control trial, but those are overly complex to interpret. There should be more simplified and pragmatic approach for analysis of randomized controlled trial. In this article, we like to summarize few of the practical points under 5 headings: "5 'Rs' of critical ...

  10. Critical analysis of research article

    A Research critique is a systematic way of objectively reviewing a piece of research to highlight both its strengths and weaknesses, and its applicability to practice. Professionals often need to be able to identify best current practice, and the ability to evaluate and use published research is critical in achieving the EBP. 1 of 47 Download Now

  11. Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative

    This article is a step-by-step approach to critiquing quantitative research to help nurses demystify the process and decode the terminology. When caring for patients, it is essential that nurses are using the current best practice. To determine what this is, nurses must be able to read research critically. But for many qualified and student ...

  12. Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative ...

    As with a quantitative study, critical analysis of a qualitative study involves an in-depth review of how each step of the research was undertaken. Qualitative and quantitative studies are, however, fundamentally different approaches to research and therefore need to be considered differently with regard to critiquing.

  13. Critiquing a research article

    This article explores certain concepts relating to critiquing research papers. These include considering the peer review process for publication, demonstrating the need for critiquing, providing a way to carefully evaluate research papers and exploring the role of impact factors. Whilst all these features are considered in this article, the ...

  14. Critiquing research

    Dec 2, 2021 • 0 likes • 621 views Riaz Marakkar Assistant Professor of Nursing at State Government of Kerala Health & Medicine Research Papersu000bCritical Analysis and Critiquing 1 of 189 Download Now What's hot (20) Research Critique Development of conceptual framework in Nursing Research Similar to Critiquing research (20)

  15. How to appraise qualitative research

    In order to make a decision about implementing evidence into practice, nurses need to be able to critically appraise research. Nurses also have a professional responsibility to maintain up-to-date practice.1 This paper provides a guide on how to critically appraise a qualitative research paper. Qualitative research concentrates on understanding phenomena and may focus on meanings, perceptions ...

  16. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

    Fundamental Criteria: General Research Quality. Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3.Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy's "Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent ...

  17. Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

    Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper. 2002 Dec;14 (1):38-48. doi: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38. School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland. Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today ...

  18. Criteria of a good research

    Jun 7, 2020 • 9 likes • 6,416 views D Dr.Sangeetha R Assistant Professor Education Explains the criteria of good research and the qualities essential for a good research. 1 of 5 What's hot (20) Similar to Criteria of a good research (20) Introduction to research methodology Business research Research Formulation by Dr. Ved Nath Jha.pptx

  19. The Research Critique General Criteria for Evaluating a Research Report

    A criteria outline for the evaluation of research reports is presented ( Table 1) as a guide to critique research. 1., 2., 3. These suggested questions are not a complete or exhaustive list. Readers are given the opportunity to practice applying the critiquing criteria to this nursing research on women's responses to fetal monitoring.

  20. Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care

    PURPOSE We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria.. METHODS We identified 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.

  21. PPT

    Critiquing Quantitative Research. Cynthia L. Russell, PhD, APRN, BC. There is no conflict of interest in the creation of this education program. Learner Objectives. 1. Describe 2 reasons for evaluating quantitative research. 2. Identify 5 sections of quantitative research reports. Download Presentation.