The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies
Abstract
Critical appraisal of research studies forms a central role within the application and uptake of evidence‐based approaches within health and social care. While there are established checklists for evaluating quantitative research, this is not the case for qualitative research. This article outlines the process of developing an evaluative tool for qualitative studies, reflecting the uniqueness of the associated paradigm, and illustrates its use by reference to three qualitative research papers appraised within a systematic review of community‐based rehabilitation services. At its centre are concerns with the context of the study and the way the data are collected and analysed. Use of such an evaluative template opens the way for the quality of qualitative research to be judged in a systematic manner and for qualitative research to take its rightful place within debates over what works, where, when and how within health and social care policy and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group* (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00011 · Cited by 1,426
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107
Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412985017 · Cited by 664 · cited 2×
“One of these extracts, that of the Perkins et al. (1997), serves to raise a common problem faced by those who try to pull together what is known in an area, in the form of a meta analysis of either method, data or theory (Paterson et al. 2001).”
BackgroundQualitative methods for assessing health care.
Fitzpatrick, R., & Boulton, M. (1994) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.3.2.107 · Cited by 298
Cited by
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,245
What is qualitative in qualitative research
Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7 · Cited by 1,280
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902
The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners
Mohamed Shaffril, H. A., Samsuddin, S. F., & Abu Samah, A. (2021) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-020-01059-6 · Cited by 656
Psychosocial impact of lymphedema: a systematic review of literature from 2004 to 2011
Fu, M. R., Ridner, S. H., Hu, S. H., Stewart, B. R., Cormier, J. N., & Armer, J. M. (2013) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.3201 · Cited by 358
Metadata
- Authors
- LONG, A. F., & GODFREY, M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 181-196
- ISSN
- 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5300
- OpenAlex
- W1990674467
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1364557032000045302
- The paper
- LONG, A. F., & GODFREY, M. (2004). An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000045302
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
