Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/62711
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative Research |
Author: | Hannes, K. Lockwood, C. Pearson, A. |
Citation: | Qualitative Health Research, 2010; 20(12):1736-1743 |
Publisher: | Sage Publications Inc |
Issue Date: | 2010 |
ISSN: | 1049-7323 1552-7557 |
Statement of Responsibility: | Karin Hannes, Craig Lockwood, and Alan Pearson |
Abstract: | The concept of validity has been a central component in critical appraisal exercises evaluating the methodological quality of quantitative studies. Reactions by qualitative researchers have been mixed in relation to whether or not validity should be applied to qualitative research and if so, what criteria should be used to distinguish high-quality articles from others. We compared three online critical appraisal instruments’ ability to facilitate an assessment of validity. Many reviewers have used the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) tool to complete their critical appraisal exercise; however, CASP appears to be less sensitive to aspects of validity than the evaluation tool for qualitative studies (ETQS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. The ETQS provides detailed instructions on how to interpret criteria; however, it is the JBI tool, with its focus on congruity, that appears to be the most coherent. |
Keywords: | evidence-based practice metasynthesis research evaluation review validity |
Rights: | © The Author(s) 2010 |
DOI: | 10.1177/1049732310378656 |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732310378656 |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 5 Nursing publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.