CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 460Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsEducational Research and Methods

Evaluation of qualitative research

Horsburgh, Dorothy·2003·Journal of Clinical Nursing
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00683.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: • It is necessary to subject published research to critical scrutiny, in order to evaluate the robustness of the findings. • The criteria used in evaluation require to be appropriate for the research paradigm, i.e. quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are unsuitable for evaluation of qualitative research as they were not devised for this purpose. • The use of quantitative criteria to evaluate qualitative research may create the impression that the latter is not academically rigorous. • Evaluation criteria which are specific to qualitative research require identification and application, in order to provide a formalized and rigorous approach to critical appraisal. • A formalized framework for evaluation will help to ensure that the contribution of qualitative studies, with specific reference to health services research, receives optimum recognition. • The work of a number of writers is used in this paper to examine the features which distinguish qualitative research and the following are discussed: • the need for researcher reflexivity; • the use of the ‘first person’ in academic work; • the context in which research takes place; • the selection of research participants; • the interpretation of participants' accounts; • the active acknowledgement of ‘lay’ knowledge; • researcher flexibility within the research process; • the generalizability of findings. • It is concluded that academically rigorous criteria, which are appropriate for evaluation of qualitative research, exist and are available for use by practitioners and researchers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00683.x

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are incompatible for evaluating qualitative research.

    “Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003).”

    From Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as Horsburgh, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Horsburgh, D.
Affiliations
Edinburgh Napier University (GB)
Corresponding author
Horsburgh, Dorothy
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-03
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
307-312
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00683.x
OpenAlex
W2147457178
Cited by
459
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 32
FWCI
40.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 69 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Output (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
critical appraisal, evaluation criteria, researcher reflexivity, first person, lay knowledge, generalizability, research participant selection, health services research, research rigor
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Nursing Research, Qualitative Research

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