Abstract
With qualitative methods being increasingly used in health science fields, numerous grids proposing criteria to evaluate the quality of this type of research have been produced. Expert evaluators deem that there is a lack of consensual tools to evaluate qualitative research. Based on the review of 133 quality criteria grids for qualitative research in health sciences, the authors present the results of a computerized lexicometric analysis, which confirms the variety of intra- and inter-grid constructions, including within the same field. This variety is linked to the authors’ paradigmatic references underlying the criteria proposed. These references seem to be built intuitively, reflecting internal representations of qualitative research, thus making the grids and their criteria hard to compare. Consequently, the consensus on the definitions and the number of criteria becomes problematic. The paradigmatic and theoretical references of the grids should be specified so that users could better assess their contributions and limitations.
Highlights
The use of qualitative research methods in the social and human sciences considerably increased as of the 1990s (Chamberlain, Stephens, & Lyons, 1997; Flick, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Murray, 2000; Silverman, 1993; Smith, Harré, & Van Langenhove, 1995)
133 grids were examined in the various health fields, from the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PeruniL, ScienceDirect, and Web of Sciences databases, using the keywords “health,” “qualitative research,” “assessment,” “appraising,” “quality criteria,” “peer review process,” “guideline,” “evaluation,” and “standards.” Data were used according to the following inclusion criteria: (a) grids published for health scientists, (b) guidelines that were sufficiently developed and commented, and (c) work published by health journals, institutes, and organizations whose scientific quality has been validated
Our content analysis and Alceste® lexicometric analysis confirm the presence of major discrepancies between the quality criteria grids examined and their relationship with the various paradigmatic and epistemological approaches identified in the grids
Summary
The use of qualitative research methods in the social and human sciences considerably increased as of the 1990s (Chamberlain, Stephens, & Lyons, 1997; Flick, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Murray, 2000; Silverman, 1993; Smith, Harré, & Van Langenhove, 1995) This dissemination quickly reached the health field through nursing, medicine, and public health. This renewed interest in qualitative research promoted the publication of numerous “quality criteria” grids/guidelines (we use the words criteria grids, guidelines, and checklists as synonyms) to evaluate the quality of a qualitative research, project, or article (e.g., in scientific journals such as the British Medical Journal, Psychology and Health, Family Practice, Sociology of Health and Illness, etc.) This abundance of guidelines, resulted in the use of numerous terms and grids, which failed to contribute to the clarification of the main consensual criteria to evaluate qualitative research.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
