The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of qualitative research
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1993) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,625
Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Fine, G. A., Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1995) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2076550 · Cited by 7,800
Ethnography: Principles and Practice
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983) · Cited by 7,730
(2014) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446294406.n148 · Cited by 7,272
Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide To Qualitative Observation And Analysis
Lofland, J., & , J. (1971) · Works - Scholarship, Research, & Creative Expression (Swarthmore College) · Cited by 5,625
Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1984) · Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government) · Cited by 4,262
Delmont, S., & Mason, J. (1997) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/591613 · Cited by 4,245
Ethnography: Principles in Practice.
Gibbons, J. A., Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1986) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2070079 · Cited by 1,619
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Glaser B.G., 1978, Theoretical Sensitivity
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013) · Nursing & Health Sciences · doi:10.1111/nhs.12048 · Cited by 8,327
Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research
Berger, R. (2015) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794112468475 · Cited by 4,031
“…increasingly recognized as a crucial strategy in the process of generating knowledge by means of qualitative research (Ahmed Dunya et al., 2011; Blaxter et al., 2006; D’Cruz et al., 2007; Gerstl-Pepin and Patrizion, 2009; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2002; Horsburgh, 2003; Koch and Harrington, 1998).”
BackgroundInfluentialTheme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016) · Journal of Nursing Education and Practice · doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100 · Cited by 1,994
Rigour in qualitative case-study research
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326 · Cited by 813
Moretti, F., van Vliet, L., Bensing, J. M., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M. A., Rimondini, M., Zimmermann, C., & Fletcher, I. J. (2011) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.005 · Cited by 453
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- 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
