Suppr超能文献

提高定性分析的质量和可信度。

Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.

作者信息

Patton M Q

机构信息

Utilization-Focused Evaluation, The Union Institute, Minneapolis, MN 55406, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1189-208.

Abstract

Varying philosophical and theoretical orientations to qualitative inquiry remind us that issues of quality and credibility intersect with audience and intended research purposes. This overview examines ways of enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis by dealing with three distinct but related inquiry concerns: rigorous techniques and methods for gathering and analyzing qualitative data, including attention to validity, reliability, and triangulation; the credibility, competence, and perceived trustworthiness of the qualitative researcher; and the philosophical beliefs of evaluation users about such paradigm-based preferences as objectivity versus subjectivity, truth versus perspective, and generalizations versus extrapolations. Although this overview examines some general approaches to issues of credibility and data quality in qualitative analysis, it is important to acknowledge that particular philosophical underpinnings, specific paradigms, and special purposes for qualitative inquiry will typically include additional or substitute criteria for assuring and judging quality, validity, and credibility. Moreover, the context for these considerations has evolved. In early literature on evaluation methods the debate between qualitative and quantitative methodologists was often strident. In recent years the debate has softened. A consensus has gradually emerged that the important challenge is to match appropriately the methods to empirical questions and issues, and not to universally advocate any single methodological approach for all problems.

摘要

对定性研究的不同哲学和理论取向提醒我们,质量和可信度问题与受众及预期研究目的相互交织。本概述探讨了通过处理三个不同但相关的研究关注点来提高定性分析质量和可信度的方法:用于收集和分析定性数据的严谨技术和方法,包括对效度、信度和三角互证的关注;定性研究者的可信度、能力和被感知的可信赖度;以及评估使用者对于诸如客观性与主观性、真理与观点、概括与外推等基于范式的偏好的哲学信念。尽管本概述考察了定性分析中可信度和数据质量问题的一些一般方法,但必须承认,特定的哲学基础、具体范式以及定性研究的特殊目的通常会包括用于确保和判断质量、效度和可信度的额外标准或替代标准。此外,这些考量的背景已经演变。在早期关于评估方法的文献中,定性和定量方法学家之间的争论往往很激烈。近年来,争论有所缓和。逐渐形成了一种共识,即重要的挑战是使方法与实证问题和议题适当匹配,而不是普遍主张对所有问题采用单一的方法论方法。

相似文献

1
Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1189-208.
4
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework.
J Adv Nurs. 2004 Nov;48(4):388-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x.
5
Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research.
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Feb;53(3):304-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x.
6
Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them?
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1101-18.
7
The emergence of qualitative methods in health services research.
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1083-90.
10
A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):43-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014. Epub 2006 Sep 28.

引用本文的文献

7
Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Early Rehabilitation in Post-Stroke Hand Dysfunction: A Qualitative Study.
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2025 Jul 31;18:4469-4480. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S533560. eCollection 2025.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验