Suppr超能文献

三种在线评估工具在定性研究中评估效度能力的比较分析。

A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research.

作者信息

Hannes Karin, Lockwood Craig, Pearson Alan

机构信息

Catholic University Leuven, Centre for Methodologyof Educational Research, Leuven, Belgium.

出版信息

Qual Health Res. 2010 Dec;20(12):1736-43. doi: 10.1177/1049732310378656. Epub 2010 Jul 29.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

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