The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Application of four-dimension criteria to assess rigour of qualitative research in emergency medicine
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The main objective of this methodological manuscript was to illustrate the role of using qualitative research in emergency settings. We outline rigorous criteria applied to a qualitative study assessing perceptions and experiences of staff working in Australian emergency departments. METHODS: We used an integrated mixed-methodology framework to identify different perspectives and experiences of emergency department staff during the implementation of a time target government policy. The qualitative study comprised interviews from 119 participants across 16 hospitals. The interviews were conducted in 2015-2016 and the data were managed using NVivo version 11. We conducted the analysis in three stages, namely: conceptual framework, comparison and contrast and hypothesis development. We concluded with the implementation of the four-dimension criteria (credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability) to assess the robustness of the study, RESULTS: We adapted four-dimension criteria to assess the rigour of a large-scale qualitative research in the emergency department context. The criteria comprised strategies such as building the research team; preparing data collection guidelines; defining and obtaining adequate participation; reaching data saturation and ensuring high levels of consistency and inter-coder agreement. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings, the proposed framework satisfied the four-dimension criteria and generated potential qualitative research applications to emergency medicine research. We have added a methodological contribution to the ongoing debate about rigour in qualitative research which we hope will guide future studies in this topic in emergency care research. It also provided recommendations for conducting future mixed-methods studies. Future papers on this series will use the results from qualitative data and the empirical findings from longitudinal data linkage to further identify factors associated with ED performance; they will be reported separately.
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
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,626
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y · Cited by 12,038
Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries
Guba, E. G. (1981) · ECTJ · doi:10.1007/bf02766777 · Cited by 5,527
Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness
Krefting, L. (1991) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 · Cited by 4,174
But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1427 · Cited by 3,668
Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry
Morse, J. M. (2015) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732315588501 · Cited by 2,809
Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note
Bowen, G. A. (2008) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794107085301 · Cited by 2,749
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x · Cited by 1,601
Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software
Kuckartz, U. (2014) · doi:10.4135/9781446288719 · Cited by 1,411
Cited by
Nevedal, A. L., Reardon, C. M., Opra Widerquist, M. A., Jackson, G. L., Cutrona, S. L., White, B. S., & Damschroder, L. J. (2021) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5 · Cited by 708
Enworo, O. C. (2023) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116 · Cited by 271
Khosravi, M., Mojtabaeian, S. M., Demiray, E. K. D., & Sayar, B. (2024) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.70300 · Cited by 12
Ludlow, K., March, S., Russell, J. K., Ryan, B., Brown, R. L., Hides, L., Donovan, C., Spence, S. H., Saxby, J., & Cobham, V. E. (2024) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076241263693 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Forero, R., Nahidi, S., De Costa, J., Mohsin, M., Fitzgerald, G., Gibson, N., McCarthy, S., & Aboagye-Sarfo, P.
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2018-02-17
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 120-120
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2791025127
- Cited by
- 688
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 86.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Application of four-dimension criteria to assess rigour of qualitative research in emergency medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12913-018-2915-2
- The paper
- Forero, R., Nahidi, S., De Costa, J., Mohsin, M., Fitzgerald, G., Gibson, N., McCarthy, S., & Aboagye-Sarfo, P. (2018). Application of four-dimension criteria to assess rigour of qualitative research in emergency medicine. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2915-2
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.