HOW TO RECOGNISE A ‘QUALITY’ GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH STUDY
Open accessAbstract
Background: The quality of a research study is a key issue for clinical practitioners committed to the delivery of ‘best-practice’ patient care. With the increasing use of grounded theory in nursing research, attention is now focusing on the quality of studies using this research methodology. Indeed, within the growing body of grounded theory in nursing some methodological problems are emerging that raise questions about the quality of the research. Aim: This paper recognises that clinical practitioners need to be critical readers of grounded theory research, so that they recognise ‘quality’ research studies and can develop their clinical practice based on sound research findings. Conclusion: Grounded theory should be viewed as a package of research methods that includes the use of concurrent data collection and constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling and memoing, all of which can create an awareness and an appreciation of the scientific merit required of grounded theory research and promote quality standards relating to research practices in grounded theory methodology.
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
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.
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?
With the increasing use and misuse of grounded theory in nursing research, it is essential that researchers understand and identify the differences when applying the three main types of grounded theory methodology.
“With the increasing use and misuse of GT in nursing research, it is essential that researchers understand and identify the differences when applying the three main types of GT methodology20”
From Application of classic grounded theory in nursing studies: a qualitative systematic review protocol (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
The Abstract and the section on research quality describe increasing use of grounded theory in nursing, methodological problems, and the need to understand its essential features. The section on criteria for assessing quality distinguishes Glaser’s approach from Strauss and Corbin’s, but the paper does not identify three main types or say researchers must distinguish among three when applying the methodology. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 156
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [14]14. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.
- [22]22. Sandelowski, M. 1998. The call to experts in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health. 21 (5):467-471.
- [25]25. Sheldon, T. 1994 Report of a workshop on clinical effectiveness. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. York: University of York.
- [30]30. Webb, C. 2003. Editor's note: Introduction to guidelines on reporting qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 42(6):544-545.
- Authors
- Elliott, N., & Lazenbatt, A.
- Affiliations
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- ORCID
- Elliott, Naomi
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Published
- 2005-05-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 48-52
- ISSN
- 0813-0531 (ISSN-L)
- 1447-4328
- OpenAlex
- W2110432043
- Semantic Scholar
- 1dbe9aac22ec52d3f7d8c6021ad4a9ebbfcf38f6
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 1.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Australian journal of advanced nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- grounded theory, research quality, critical appraisal, nursing research methodology, theoretical sampling, memoing
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Humans, Quality Control, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Nursing 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
