Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
</div>  
</div>  
== Introduction ==
== Introduction ==
Interpreting a qualitative research paper is an analysis of the quality of the material between your hands. It allows you to understand the reliability of the research and the construction of the paper<ref>Algeo N. Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper. Physioplus Course 2020</ref>.  
Qualitative research aims to study things in their natural setting to make sense of a phenomenon in terms of meanings people bring to them. <ref>Denkin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.) ''Handbook of qualitative research.'' London: Sage. 1994. </ref><ref>Yates J, Leggett T. Qualitative research: An introduction. Radiologic technology. 2016 Nov 1;88(2):225-31.</ref> This type of research "seeks to understand and explore rather than to explain and manipulate variables". <ref>Nassaji H. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/1362168820941288 Good qualitative research.] Language Teaching Research. 2020 Jul;24(4):427-31.</ref>Qualitative research involves the studied use of a variety of methods – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts. <ref>Aspers P, Corte U. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6494783/pdf/11133_2019_Article_9413.pdf What is qualitative in qualitative research]. Qualitative Sociology. 2019 Jun 1;42(2):139-60.</ref>   


== CASP checklist ==
Interpreting a [https://physio-pedia.com/Qualitative_Research?utm_source=physiopedia&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=ongoing_internal qualitative research] paper is an analysis of the quality of the material. It allows you to understand the reliability of the research and the construction of the paper. <ref name=":1">Algeo N. Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper. Plus Course 2020</ref> 
CASP  stands for the critical appraisal skills programme. The CASP offers free downloadable checklists that help in critiquing research papers.  


It is formed of ten questions.  
'''Characteristics of qualitative research'''<ref name=":0">Samsi K. Critical appraisal of qualitative research. Lecture, from King’s College London. 2012.</ref>''':''' 
* Explores meanings 
* Acknowledges the researcher’s point of view (reflexivity) 
* Uses interpretative methods of analysis 
* Iterative process 
* Contextual: concerned with the individual's perspective 
* Inductive     


'''Section A,''' and it looks at the validity of the study results. This can be subjective as these studies don't have statistical significance instead there is a heavy reliance on the essence of the qualitative research by critically appraise and reflect on the methods and the design of the research.  
== Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research ==
'''The qualitative researcher must'''<ref name=":0" />''':'''
* Eliminate subjectivity
* Acknowledge their relationship with the study/participants/data and question implications on study findings
* Discuss varied viewpoints to gain a greater range of perspectives
* Examine deviant participants and multiple coding that challenge assumptions
Trustworthiness or rigour of a study refers to the degree of confidence in data, interpretation, and methods used to ensure the quality of a study. Researchers should discuss the methods and procedures necessary for a study to be considered credible <ref>Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing. 2016 Nov 1;25(6):435-7.</ref>


Section B looks at the findings or the results of the study.
Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of a particulars studies findings. Lincoln and Guba<ref>Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).</ref> suggested that the trustworthiness of a study depends on 4 factors: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. These four criteria are used to appraise the accuracy of qualitative research.<ref name=":2">Stenfors T, Kajamaa A, Bennett D. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/tct.13242 How to… assess the quality of qualitative research]. The clinical teacher. 2020 Dec;17(6):596-9.</ref>


Section C is concerned with the applicability of the results.
This table was adopted from [https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance Cochrane library supplemental handbook guidance]<ref>Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available from URL <nowiki>http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance</nowiki></ref>
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"
|-
! scope="col" | Aspect
! scope="col" | Qualitative Term
! scope="col" | Quantitative Term
|-
! scope="col" | Truth value
! scope="col" | Credibility Internal
! scope="col" | Validity
|-
! scope="col" | Applicability
! scope="col" | Transferability
! scope="col" |  External Validity or generalisability
|-
! scope="col" | Consistency
! scope="col" | Dependability
! scope="col" |  Reliability
|-
! scope="col" | Neutrality
! scope="col" | Confirmability
! scope="col" |  Objectivity


Analysing the qualitative research, think about these questions:  
|}                                                                     
 
'''Techniques for imposing rigour'''<ref name=":0" />
* Triangulation: is defined as the use of varied methods, data sources, and multiple researchers
* Reflexivity: refers to the position of the researchers in relation to the research and their interaction with the participants
* Multiple coding: refers to the use of independent researchers, calculate inter-rater reliability and idea generation
* Respondent validation: involving participants to give their opinion and interpretations to provide an overview and generate further data
* Deviant case analysis: exploring participants who might seem to be deviant from the norm and involve them in the study
 
== Step by Step Guide to Interpreting A Qualitative Research Paper ==
The [https://www.physio-pedia.com/images/e/ec/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist.pdf CASP]  is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists which are often used in health research. They cover many research methods, including qualitative research. They are designed to prompt the reader to reflect on different aspects of a research paper and are typically structured around three core domains<ref name=":1" />:
# The validity of the results
# The findings of the study
# The transferability
 
=== Analyzing the Introduction ===
The introduction to a research paper should give the context and reflect the importance of the research question leading up to the rationale of the research. It should also discuss the gap in the area that's been researched as well as the angle of focus.
 
Previous research should also be discussed and highlight similarities and limitations to explain why this research should take place and it's significance to find answers. <ref name=":1" />
 
When interpreting the introduction, a good question to ask is whether the use of qualitative research was appropriate for this type of study or not? Qualitative methods are typically used for illuminating the actions, or subjective experiences, of participants or when looking to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon.
 
'''Questions to ask when interpreting the research question:'''
* Is there a clear statement of the aims of the study?  
* Is there a clear statement of the aims of the study?  
* What are the goals of the study?
* What are the goals of the study?
* What was the rationale for this research?  
* What was the rationale for this research?  
* How relevant is this?  
* How relevant is this?  
* Is the research question clearly formulated? Is it important?  
* Is the research question clearly formulated? Is it important?                                    
A-The research introduction should give the context and reflect the importance of the research question leading up to the rationale of the research. It should also discuss the gap in the area that's been researched with the angle of focus. Previous research should also be discussed and a highlight on similarities and limitations to explain why this research should take place and it's significant to find answers,


B- Analysis of the qualitative research methods and the used approach. Is it appropriate for the questions? is a qualitative approach appropriate? Qualitative methods are used when illuminating some actions or subjective experiences of participants or looking to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon.
=== Sample size and participants ===
The norm for the sample size should not only be judged by data saturation or a rule-of-thumb, but rather their extensiveness and appropriateness for a specific qualitative research goals. <ref>Sarfo JO, Debraha TP, Gbordzoea NI, Affula WT, Obenga P. [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/89079430/jare.2021.3-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1666993357&Signature=ADbvhvVN0E~RxMEksbwaoZ9w9thuHm4xL51uO4U6gqx2lRjczoI~B-YmSI8Vt8IOwmGrVWZFgD89HINpm6RloeSWFA4jdO2pfUgAz99eXJX0pC0RvtVm38zs8upjKvrM1DSs4ZtddvkHzWX2wsZmabvv6gfh7p1Axl8SUyzbBoqhQhpQX~za4CE7gKdypHYomx-eXHlbGlTWYICsDJiYFmVz7wBk10jkZeWzb9g7BEnvGTnBfO7dKfmEYHojQCOMQcbIcWfvt99C3Kxb6iCSHWXF3-sJwKS2ALaJAsMhSEn98wRpr4i72vPglcPXMN5dHxq~kfgZa8tRF7g7o~5tyw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Qualitative Research Designs, Sample Size and Saturation: Is Enough Always Enough?]. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education. 2021;8(3):60-5.</ref> When assessing the quality of research, it is important to check for the following<ref name=":0" />:
* Was the sample used appropriately for its research questions?
* What were the methods of the participants' selection and recruitment?
* Was the recruitment strategy relevant to the research question?
* Was the sampling strategy justified?
* Was the sampling purposive/ theoretical?
* Was it a convenience sample?
* What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study?


C- Reflecting on the study design and whether it's appropriate for the research question or not. For example, using ethnography would be an appropriate design when studying a particular cultural group.
=== Data Collection ===
It is important to analyse whether the data collection methods were appropriate for the research objectives and settings? This involves an in-depth analysis of the methods and how did the methods influence the findings?


D- Analysing the recruitment strategy. For example, exploring the experience of rural dwelling, older adults in communicating with family members during the COVID pandemic. Recruiting participants through social media and using the snowballing technique is a good way to encourage a large sector of participants but using it a the sole recruitment strategy could dismiss or potentially exclude people who aren't good with using technology or those who haven't used technology to communicate with their families.
The study should justify the data collection method used to meet the criteria of the research question. <ref name=":1" />


E- The sampling strategy. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clear and purposeful to recruit specific participan'''ts who the interesting s'''ubject of the research? Also, think if the sampling was probably quite inclusive and left any cohorts out? 
Data saturation is the point at which new information or themes stop to emerge. This is often under-reported by researchers in qualitative research. <ref name=":1" />     


F-The data collection method. Looking into the methods used in the research whether they were justified to meet the criteria of the research question and does it match the subject of research? are the methods varied enough to give participants choice?  Also, analysing the way the authors used and documented the methods. For example, if interviews were used to collect data, we should be looking into was the interview structured? Was it semi-structured? Or was it unstructured? And why was that? so the details of the method and the rationale that justifies the use and the application of the method.     
=== Data Analysis ===
'''Characteristics of proper data analysis:'''
* Transparency in the analysis and interpretations
* Uses a systematic approach
* Discusses contradicted data and divergent findings
* Multiple coding
* Credibility of results
* Justified conclusion


G-Data saturation. In qualitative research, particularly if it's interviews or focus groups, data saturation is the point at which new information or themes stop to emerge when the data set is saturated.    
=== Reflexivity ===
Reflexivity is an additional marker of quality. <ref name=":2" /> It is a self-awareness of one’s role in the research process  when a researcher reflects on their own position within the research and they consider their own biases. The Consolidate Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research( [http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf COREQ]) is a checklist of the criteria for authors which contains a whole section dedicated to reflexivity. <ref name=":1" /> <ref>Williams V, Boylan AM, Nunan D. [https://ebm.bmj.com/content/ebmed/25/1/9.full.pdf Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias.] BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Feb;25(1):9-11. </ref>


Data saturation and sample sizes in qualitative research are under-reported sometimes. Sample sizes, can often not be justified very well in qualitative research. So, for example, if it's an interpretive phenomenological analysis looking into in-depth analysis usually involves a smaller sample size.      
It is unlikely that a researcher would remain completely neutral towards a topic with no opinion or viewpoint towards it at all. Reflexivity is sometimes confused with reflection. Hibbert et al <ref>Hibbert P, Coupland C, MacIntosh R. Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2010 May 11.</ref> offer a useful distinction between the two terms, suggesting that reflection is like a mirror image that gives the opportunity to observe and examine our ways of doing. Reflexivity, on the other hand, involves thinking about our experiences and questioning our ways of doing.                              


If data saturation isn't mentioned in the qualitative paper, it could prompt to ask or query the validity of the results because I don't know for certain that there wouldn't have been any other themes that emerged or any contradicting viewpoints or sub-themes that could have emerged.     
=== Transferability ===
Can the results of the study be transferred or applied to the practice?


This could be challenging for researchers when writing the research protocol and determining the sample size at the stage when data saturation is still unknown at which number of participants and it needs to be monitored and reported.      
Transferability refers to the extent that the findings of a particular qualitative study can be applied to other situations. This should be reflected in the large and variant sample size, depending on the research question.<ref>Probyn J, Howarth M, Maz J. The ‘middle bit’: how to appraise qualitative research. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 2016 May 2;11(5):248-54.</ref>Researchers should include sufficient information about the study setting and participant characteristics. They ought to compare findings to other studies conducted in different populations. This approach allows other researchers to judge whether the findings can be applicable to their own setting.<ref>Baumgart A, Craig JC, Tong A. [https://www.ajkd.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0272-6386%2821%2900008-1 Qualitative research in CKD: how to appraise and interpret the evidence.] American journal of kidney diseases. 2021 Apr 1;77(4):538-41.</ref>


H- Looking at the validity of the findings and any conflict of interest and the relationship between the researcher and the participants as this might influence the results. Looking at factors that might reflect bias in the viewpoints of the researcher, the data collection method that is known as reflexivity. Reflexivity is essentially self-awareness when a researcher reflects on their own position within the research and they consider their own biases. And importantly, when they make it fairly clear and explicit in the research paper of potential biases that they may have. COREQ is a checklist of the criteria for reporting qualitative research. It is for authors to check and tick off when writing qualitative research where there is a whole section dedicated to reflexivity and the research team and their relationships and their own self-awareness.                              
=== Clarity and transparency of data analysis ===
Taking the following steps will ensure the study is clear of bias:
* The in-depth description and the type of analysis
* How the data were selected from the original sample?                                 
* Is there enough data to support the findings? In qualitative research that might be in the form of quotes<ref name=":1" />                               
The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature .<ref name=":1" /> 


'''Section B''' is around the results. What are they? There are questions in the checklist to think about:                
=== Ethics ===
Components of the ethical research relationship<ref name=":0" />
* Acknowledgement of bias
* Rigour
* Rapport and managing distress
* Respect for autonomy
* Confidentiality
* Avoidance of exploitation (being aware of power relationships 


1-Ethical considerations. Mainly looking into the details of recruitment and involving participants and whether ethical standards were maintained and kept. For example, does it talk about informed consent? Do the authors talk about a participant information leaflet? Do they talk about an opportunity for participants to pose any questions? Also looking into whether the authors discussed any particular issues raised by the study, for example, the effects of the study and how they were handled particularly when a sensitive topic is explored. How did they handle participants becoming distressed or experienced discomfort?              
{{#ev:youtube|H8Y-yfi3vp4|300}}<ref>Introduction to critical appraisal. Available from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Y-yfi3vp4[last accessed 01/11/2020]</ref>


2- Clarity and transparency of data analysis. The steps that were taken into the process and making sure they weren't biased. Looking into the in-depth description of the analysis process? Types of analysis,                
=== Other Checklists: ===
[https://ppw.kuleuven.be/mesrg/seminars-and-events/three-day-systematic-review-workshop-quantitative-and-qualitative-approaches-1/sr-2012-course-materials/sr-2012-day-3/meta-aggregation.pptx QARI software developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute],  


The data that is presented, how was it selected from the original sample? To demonstrate the analysis process. Is there enough data to support the findings? So, for example, if we have a theme and I say that most men with prostate cancer reported fear of recurrence around their condition. But I only give one quote to support that. Is that enough? You usually need to have sufficient data, within reason. You also need to consider as the reader that qualitative papers can be quite lengthy, where the results section is quite vast often because you are really going in-depth and there's a lot of quotes and things. So, sometimes, it's possible that the authors mightn't have had enough space to put in lots and lots of quotes. So while we aren't looking for, you know, a quote from every single participant or most participants to support that theme, we do want, you know, two or three quotes, maybe that support our findings that we're claiming.                               
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-social-research-framework-for-assessing-research-evidence Quality Framework UK Cabinet Office]


== Resources ==
[http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/12970/1/Evaluation_Tool_for_Qualitative_Studies.pdf Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies by Salford University]
== References  ==
== References  ==


<references />
<references />
[[Category:EBP]]
[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:Course Pages]]
[[Category:Plus Content]]

Latest revision as of 06:59, 29 October 2022

Original Editor - Mariam Hashem

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

Introduction[edit | edit source]

Qualitative research aims to study things in their natural setting to make sense of a phenomenon in terms of meanings people bring to them. [1][2] This type of research "seeks to understand and explore rather than to explain and manipulate variables". [3]Qualitative research involves the studied use of a variety of methods – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts. [4]

Interpreting a qualitative research paper is an analysis of the quality of the material. It allows you to understand the reliability of the research and the construction of the paper. [5]

Characteristics of qualitative research[6]:

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

Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research[edit | edit source]

The qualitative researcher must[6]:

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

Trustworthiness or rigour of a study refers to the degree of confidence in data, interpretation, and methods used to ensure the quality of a study. Researchers should discuss the methods and procedures necessary for a study to be considered credible [7]

Credibility is how confident we are in the truth of a particulars studies findings. Lincoln and Guba[8] suggested that the trustworthiness of a study depends on 4 factors: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. These four criteria are used to appraise the accuracy of qualitative research.[9]

This table was adopted from Cochrane library supplemental handbook guidance[10]

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

Techniques for imposing rigour[6]

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

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

The CASP is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists which are often used in health research. They cover many research methods, including qualitative research. They are designed to prompt the reader to reflect on different aspects of a research paper and are typically structured around three core domains[5]:

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

Analyzing the Introduction[edit | edit source]

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

Previous research should also be discussed and highlight similarities and limitations to explain why this research should take place and it's significance to find answers. [5]

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

Questions to ask when interpreting the research question:

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

Sample size and participants[edit | edit source]

The norm for the sample size should not only be judged by data saturation or a rule-of-thumb, but rather their extensiveness and appropriateness for a specific qualitative research goals. [11] When assessing the quality of research, it is important to check for the following[6]:

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

Data Collection[edit | edit source]

It is important to analyse whether the data collection methods were appropriate for the research objectives and settings? This involves an in-depth analysis of the methods and how did the methods influence the findings?

The study should justify the data collection method used to meet the criteria of the research question. [5]

Data saturation is the point at which new information or themes stop to emerge. This is often under-reported by researchers in qualitative research. [5]

Data Analysis[edit | edit source]

Characteristics of proper data analysis:

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

Reflexivity[edit | edit source]

Reflexivity is an additional marker of quality. [9] It is a self-awareness of one’s role in the research process when a researcher reflects on their own position within the research and they consider their own biases. The Consolidate Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research( COREQ) is a checklist of the criteria for authors which contains a whole section dedicated to reflexivity. [5] [12]

It is unlikely that a researcher would remain completely neutral towards a topic with no opinion or viewpoint towards it at all. Reflexivity is sometimes confused with reflection. Hibbert et al [13] offer a useful distinction between the two terms, suggesting that reflection is like a mirror image that gives the opportunity to observe and examine our ways of doing. Reflexivity, on the other hand, involves thinking about our experiences and questioning our ways of doing.

Transferability[edit | edit source]

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

Transferability refers to the extent that the findings of a particular qualitative study can be applied to other situations. This should be reflected in the large and variant sample size, depending on the research question.[14]Researchers should include sufficient information about the study setting and participant characteristics. They ought to compare findings to other studies conducted in different populations. This approach allows other researchers to judge whether the findings can be applicable to their own setting.[15]

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

Taking the following steps will ensure the study is clear of bias:

  • The in-depth description and the type of analysis
  • How the data were selected from the original sample?
  • Is there enough data to support the findings? In qualitative research that might be in the form of quotes[5]

The main findings should be discussed clearly in the discussion section with evidence both for and against their argument agreeing or contradicting previous literature .[5]

Ethics[edit | edit source]

Components of the ethical research relationship[6]

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

[16]

Other Checklists:[edit | edit source]

QARI software developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute,

Quality Framework UK Cabinet Office

Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies by Salford University

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Denkin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. 1994. 
  2. ↑ Yates J, Leggett T. Qualitative research: An introduction. Radiologic technology. 2016 Nov 1;88(2):225-31.
  3. ↑ Nassaji H. Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research. 2020 Jul;24(4):427-31.
  4. ↑ Aspers P, Corte U. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology. 2019 Jun 1;42(2):139-60.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Algeo N. Interpreting a Qualitative Research Paper. Plus Course 2020
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Samsi K. Critical appraisal of qualitative research. Lecture, from King’s College London. 2012.
  7. ↑ Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing. 2016 Nov 1;25(6):435-7.
  8. ↑ Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (1985).
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Stenfors T, Kajamaa A, Bennett D. How to… assess the quality of qualitative research. The clinical teacher. 2020 Dec;17(6):596-9.
  10. ↑ Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available from URL http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance
  11. ↑ Sarfo JO, Debraha TP, Gbordzoea NI, Affula WT, Obenga P. Qualitative Research Designs, Sample Size and Saturation: Is Enough Always Enough?. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education. 2021;8(3):60-5.
  12. ↑ Williams V, Boylan AM, Nunan D. Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Feb;25(1):9-11.
  13. ↑ Hibbert P, Coupland C, MacIntosh R. Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2010 May 11.
  14. ↑ Probyn J, Howarth M, Maz J. The ‘middle bit’: how to appraise qualitative research. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 2016 May 2;11(5):248-54.
  15. ↑ Baumgart A, Craig JC, Tong A. Qualitative research in CKD: how to appraise and interpret the evidence. American journal of kidney diseases. 2021 Apr 1;77(4):538-41.
  16. ↑ Introduction to critical appraisal. Available from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Y-yfi3vp4[last accessed 01/11/2020]
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/index.php?title=Interpreting_a_Qualitative_Research_Paper&oldid=319361"