CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Buus, Niels, Perron, Amelie·2020·International Journal of Nursing Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103452
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Using checklists to critically evaluate and report qualitative research is a common practice in the health sciences and there is currently a plethora of checklists available. One strategy for developing such checklists is to identify and amalgamate items from previous checklists into more comprehensive, consolidated ones.Objective This paper aims to critically review the credibility of a widely endorsed checklist of this type, the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), by replicating the procedures that led to the consolidation of its 32 items. The original development of COREQ consisted of four phases: 1. A literature search and identification of a sample (n = 22) of references, 2. Data extraction through coding the references, 3. A simplification of an intermediate list of items, and 4. Addition of two items.Design and methods A replication of the four-phased development of COREQ. We used the reported account of the development of COREQ to replicate the procedures and rationale applied in the four phases. However, we were rarely able to replicate them completely because of uncertainty about the actual procedures. The problems with the replication indicated that COREQ's items were not credible because the coding processes were not trustworthy and because they decontextualized original checklist items and significantly distorted their meaning in COREQ's final list of items. We discuss the use of checklists by means of Haraway's figure of the "modest witness", which emphasizes that checklists can de-politicize research and create an illusion of rationality and objectivity.Conclusions Considering that COREQ is widely endorsed by scholarly journals, it is alarming that the checklist's particular technical and a-political approach to achieve more complete reporting of qualitative research and its particular perspective on what constitutes quality in qualitative research remains unchallenged.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103452

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Blaxter, 2013, Criteria for the evaluation of qualitative research papers, Med. Sociol. Online, 7, 4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–190 of 190

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Buus, N., & Perron, A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Buus, Niels
ORCID
Buus, Niels
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
102
Pages
103452
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103452
OpenAlex
W2981609390
Cited by
190
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 7
FWCI
33.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
COREQ, reporting checklist, qualitative research reporting, checklist development
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Qualitative Research, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review