Hannes Karin, Lockwood Craig, Pearson Alan
Catholic University Leuven, Centre for Methodologyof Educational Research, Leuven, Belgium.
Qual Health Res. 2010 Dec;20(12):1736-43. doi: 10.1177/1049732310378656. Epub 2010 Jul 29.
The concept of validity has been a central component in critical appraisal exercises evaluating the methodological quality of quantitative studies. Reactions by qualitative researchers have been mixed in relation to whether or not validity should be applied to qualitative research and if so, what criteria should be used to distinguish high-quality articles from others. We compared three online critical appraisal instruments' ability to facilitate an assessment of validity. Many reviewers have used the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) tool to complete their critical appraisal exercise; however, CASP appears to be less sensitive to aspects of validity than the evaluation tool for qualitative studies (ETQS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. The ETQS provides detailed instructions on how to interpret criteria; however, it is the JBI tool, with its focus on congruity, that appears to be the most coherent.
效度概念一直是评估定量研究方法质量的批判性评价活动的核心组成部分。定性研究人员对于效度是否应应用于定性研究，以及如果适用，应使用哪些标准来区分高质量文章与其他文章的反应不一。我们比较了三种在线批判性评价工具对效度进行评估的能力。许多评审人员使用批判性评价技能计划（CASP）工具来完成他们的批判性评价活动；然而，与定性研究评估工具（ETQS）和乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（JBI）工具相比，CASP似乎对效度方面的敏感度较低。ETQS提供了关于如何解释标准的详细说明；然而，专注于一致性的JBI工具似乎是最连贯的。
