The quality of quality criteria: Replicating the development of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ)

AbstractThis 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.

Download Full-text

Quality guidelines for mixed methods research in intervention studies

Advances in Methodology and Statistics ◽

10.51936/mysp2698 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Gizela Kopač ◽

Valentina Hlebec

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Theoretical Model ◽

Mixed Methods Research ◽

Intervention Studies ◽

Complex Interventions ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Quality Guidelines ◽

Quasi Experimental

Among researchers' many investigations of the use of mixed methods in intervention studies, more recent discussions especially concern the roles played in such studies by qualitative research, intervention phases, procedures, and integration (Gallo and Lee, 2016; Woolcock, 2018; O'Cathain, 2018; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). One can find the basic procedures to follow while realizing a mixed methods experimental design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018), practical guidance (O'Cathain, 2018) for using qualitative research with a randomized control trial (RCT), and a mixed methods appraisal tool for appraising the methodological quality of RCTs, non-randomized studies, and mixed methods – MMAT (Hong et al., 2018). However, no model exists to assess the quality of mixed methods research in intervention studies, particularly experimental and quasi-experimental research in complex interventions. Our aim is to develop such a theoretical model. Today, the number of interventions relying on mixed methods methodology is growing exponentially. A theoretical model is called for to help assess the quality of mixed methods research in intervention studies, and in this respect our aim is to: (1) provide an overview of guidelines, recommendations, models, and quality criteria for mixed methods research; (2) overview the guidelines for intervention studies; (3) give a summary of guidelines and models for mixed methods research in such studies; (4) evaluate the mentioned guidelines, models, and quality criteria; (5) identify and describe the key elements of these guidelines, models, and quality criteria; and (6) develop a theoretical model for assessing the quality of mixed methods research designs used in intervention studies.

Download Full-text

Verifying rigor: analyzing qualitative research in international marketing

International Marketing Review ◽

10.1108/imr-03-2020-0040 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽

Author(s):

Nitish Singh ◽

Mamoun Benmamoun ◽

Elizabeth Meyr ◽

Ramazan Hamza Arikan

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Qualitative Methods ◽

International Marketing ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Qualitative Studies ◽

Future Research ◽

Content Type ◽

The Past

PurposeThere has been a growing call regarding broad criteria for assessing qualitative methods' reliability and validity in international marketing (IM) research. In response, this study synthesizes the past literature to present an overarching, yet adaptable, trustworthiness verification framework for assessing the rigor of various qualitative methods used in IM.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative research from various disciplines. It uses content analysis to examine how trustworthiness is conceptualized in qualitative studies in International Marketing Review (IMR) from 2005 to 2019.FindingsThe analysis reveals that strategies to ensure rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative research in IMR are partially applied. There remain gaps in implementing quality criteria across the trustworthiness dimensions of credibility, transferability, dependability, conformability and ethics.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper highlights the importance of incorporating strategies for assessing the quality of qualitative research in IM research. Since the analysis only focused on IMR, future research should explore and test the framework in other IM and business journals to reach a broader consensus in assessing qualitative studies' rigor.Originality/valueIM researchers have yet to develop a consensus regarding broad criteria for assessing qualitative methods' reliability and validity. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.

Download Full-text

Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) Review Process Does Not Use Checklists

Qualitative Health Research ◽

10.1177/1049732321994114 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 31 (5) ◽

pp. 819-821

Author(s):

Janice Morse

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Health Research ◽

Review Process ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Qualitative Inquiry ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Qualitative Health Research

Using checklists in manuscripts are perceived to indicate quality, transparency, and rigor. Generally, these checklists consist of a list of all of the strategies that may be used to ensure rigor and transparency. Beside each item, there is usually a box to check (or tick) to indicate whether a component is present, and a space on which to note the page each item is listed in the manuscript. Some of these forms also include space for the author to make brief comments to the reviewer. The intent is that the checklist guides the review process to ensure that all components are present in the article, and therefore, that the article is solid enough to publish. However, these checklists consist only of technical/mechanical management of the creation and sorting of data. These lists ignore the value of the product of the research: They do not address the originality, the substance, the contribution, and the potential results to the actual topic—which is after all the purpose of the project itself. Paradoxically, these checklist reviews are undermining the quality of qualitative inquiry. In seeking quality, the criteria for systematic reviews, clinical trials, and evidence have spilled over to represent quality criteria for all qualitative research. They are becoming commonplace for evaluating qualitative research by journal editors, directing the review process, and subsequent evaluation of the research. Of greatest concern is that checklists items are being used by authors themselves to represent their actual text (e.g., “data were saturated”), and the items for completing these forms are read by the reviewers and editors in lieu of reading the article itself (e.g., for signs of “saturation”). Furthermore, the use of these criteria by authors/researchers to guide the conduct of their research, yet meeting all these criteria, whether relevant or pertinent or necessary for their project, and may even invalidate the findings. In this way, these criteria are redefining processes of qualitative inquiry.

Download Full-text

Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools

Qualitative Health Research ◽

10.1177/1049732318785358 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 28 (13) ◽

pp. 2115-2131 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Umair Majid ◽

Meredith Vanstone

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Quality Appraisal ◽

Qualitative Health Research ◽

Qualitative Evidence ◽

Daunting Task ◽

Appraisal Tool

As the movement toward evidence-based health policy continues to emphasize the importance of including patient and public perspectives, syntheses of qualitative health research are becoming more common. In response to the focus on independent assessments of rigor in these knowledge products, over 100 appraisal tools for assessing the quality of qualitative research have been developed. The variety of appraisal tools exhibit diverse methods and purposes, reflecting the lack of consensus as to what constitutes appropriate quality criteria for qualitative research. It is a daunting task for those without deep familiarity of the field to choose the best appraisal tool for their purpose. This article provides a description of the structure, content, and objectives of existing appraisal tools for those wanting to evaluate primary qualitative research for a qualitative evidence synthesis. We then discuss common features of appraisal tools and examine their implications for evidence synthesis.

Download Full-text

An experience of performing spirometry by trained general practitioners

Medical alphabet ◽

10.33667/2078-5631-2020-25-34-36 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 34-36

Author(s):

M. A. Pokhaznikova ◽

E. A. Andreeva ◽

O. Yu. Kuznetsova

Keyword(s):

General Practitioners ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Male Gender ◽

Study Research ◽

The Poor ◽

Quality Of Research ◽

Forced Expiratory Maneuver ◽

Maximal Effort

The article discusses the experience of teaching and conducting spirometry of general practitioners as part of the RESPECT study (RESearch on the PrEvalence and the diagnosis of COPD and its Tobacco-related aetiology). A total of 33 trained in spirometry general practitioners performed a study of 3119 patients. Quality criteria met 84.1% of spirometric studies. The analysis of the most common mistakes made by doctors during the forced expiratory maneuver is included. The most frequent errors were expiration exhalation of less than 6s (54%), non-maximal effort throughout the test and lack of reproducibility (11.3%). Independent predictors of poor spirogram quality were male gender, obstruction (FEV1 /FVC<0.7), and the center where the study was performed. The number of good-quality spirograms ranged from 96.1% (95% CI 83.2–110.4) to 59.8% (95% CI 49.6–71.4) depending on the center. Subsequently, an analysis of the reasons behind the poor quality of research in individual centers was conducted and the identified shortcomings were eliminated. The poor quality of the spirograms was associated either with the errors of the doctors who undertook the study or with the technical malfunctions of the spirometer.

Download Full-text

THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC HOSPITALS IN CAN THO CITY, 2016

Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy ◽

10.34071/jmp.2018.6.10 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 76-81

Author(s):

Chu Cao Minh ◽

Thang Vo Van ◽

Dat Nguyen Tan ◽

Hung Vo Thanh

Keyword(s):

Hospital Medicine ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Quality Criterion ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Public Hospitals ◽

Ministry Of Health ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Can Tho City

Background: The criteria set of assessing hospital quality in Vietnam in 2016 was revied from the criteria set in 2013 by the Ministry of Health in order to help hospitals to self-assess towards improvinge quality of hospitals in the international integration context. The study aimed to assess the quality of public hospitals in Can Tho City according to the revised criteria set of the Ministry of Health in 2016 and compare the quality among three hospital ranks (including grade I, grade II, and grade III) via to 5 groups of quality criteria. Methods: A cross-sectional study, using secondary data analysis was applied to assess the service quality of 7 general public hospitals in Can Tho City. Results: The average total score of 7 hospitals is 245 and the average for the criteria of 7 hospitals is 2.99, which is just satisfactory. In the criterion of quality, criterion D and E had the lowest scores compared to the other three groups. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.076) among the mean scores for the three hospital categories. Conclusion: The quality of public hospitals in Can Tho city in 2016 only reached moderately good level (2.99). Interventions should be developed to improve the quality of hospitals, with particular emphasis on improving the quality of criteria groups D and E. Key words: Quality, hospital, medicine, health, public, Can Tho

Download Full-text

Getting out of the Field

10.1093/oso/9780199330010.003.0005 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Jeasik Cho

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Academic Research ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Research Community

This chapter provides a review of the book, which explores how to conceptually understand and practically evaluate the quality of qualitative research. Despite the fact that there are few scholarly pieces regarding qualitative research, the depth and creativity that the pioneering researchers have demonstrated are profound, and the extent to which they cover not only the broad quality of qualitative research but also most of the specific qualities expected by many different kinds of qualitative research is incredible. This chapter summarizes the major topics of this book. Final remarks on this exciting, creative, but difficult topic are preceded by the following summary: Fortunately, There are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called “scientific research.”

Download Full-text

Evaluating Qualitative Research

10.1093/oso/9780199330010.001.0001 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jeasik Cho

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Large Scale ◽

Academic Research ◽

Research Community ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Journal Editors ◽

The Past ◽

Grant Proposals

This book provides the qualitative research community with some insight on how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research. This topic has gained little attention during the past few decades. We, qualitative researchers, read journal articles, serve on masters’ and doctoral committees, and also make decisions on whether conference proposals, manuscripts, or large-scale grant proposals should be accepted or rejected. It is assumed that various perspectives or criteria, depending on various paradigms, theories, or fields of discipline, have been used in assessing the quality of qualitative research. Nonetheless, until now, no textbook has been specifically devoted to exploring theories, practices, and reflections associated with the evaluation of qualitative research. This book constructs a typology of evaluating qualitative research, examines actual information from websites and qualitative journal editors, and reflects on some challenges that are currently encountered by the qualitative research community. Many different kinds of journals’ review guidelines and available assessment tools are collected and analyzed. Consequently, core criteria that stand out among these evaluation tools are presented. Readers are invited to join the author to confidently proclaim: “Fortunately, there are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called ‘scientific research.’ ”

Download Full-text

The use of mathematical modelling to analyse the process of mixing waters from different sources in water supply system

E3S Web of Conferences ◽

10.1051/e3sconf/20185900025 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 59 ◽

pp. 00025

Author(s):

Agnieszka Szuster – Janiaczyk ◽

Rafał Brodziak ◽

Jędrzej Bylka

Keyword(s):

Mathematical Modeling ◽

Water Quality ◽

Quality Criteria ◽

Supply System ◽

Network Control ◽

Quality Of Water ◽

Water Mains ◽

Different Sources ◽

Mixing Water

One of the processes that significantly determines the quality of water to consumers is the process of mixing water from different sources in the water mains. Put to the network two or more chemically and biologically stable waters may result in the formation of water that will be deprived of these features. This article presents the german guidelines for analysing water quality for mixing waters from different sources, in various proportions. Then performed an analysis of utility the mathematical models,including quality criteria, for use in network control. An IT tool has been developed to manage selected water quality processes using mathematical modeling. The basis for implementing the tool was a network model created in Epanet integrated with the Matlab.

Download Full-text