Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Patient and Population Health and Informatics, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Ear Hear. 2020 Nov/Dec;41 Suppl 1:91S-98S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000932.
In this article, we examine ecological validity in hearing science from a qualitative methodological perspective. We present an overview of qualitative methods, presenting their key characteristics and contrasting these techniques with quantitative approaches to enquiry. We argue that ecological validity sits at the heart of the qualitative paradigm and seek to clearly emphasize the methodological gap that could be effectively filled by qualitative or mixed methods. In doing so, we discuss qualitative methods that may work particularly well in enhancing ecological validity in hearing science and explore their range of applications in this field. These approaches can be applied to a wide range of hearing health research questions to present a unique understanding of people's experiences of disease and disability, indicating gradations of personal health and illness in nuanced ways. We acknowledge and commend the current expansion of qualitative methods within hearing science and present recommendations for increasing ecological validity, both in the design of future studies and in the context of the wider research cycle. We call on qualitative researchers to strive for transparency, rigor, and trustworthiness and highlight challenges to be overcome if qualitative methods are to contribute to effective, efficient research strategies. To facilitate the transference of high-quality research findings into practice, we stress the need for joined-up working to create a research culture that promotes coproduction of ecologically valid research designs, involving not only hearing researchers but also implementation scientists, hearing healthcare professionals and, most importantly, people with hearing loss for whom these efforts could make a difference.
本文从定性方法论的角度探讨了听力科学中的生态有效性。我们介绍了定性方法的概述，呈现了它们的主要特点，并将这些技术与定量研究方法进行对比。我们认为生态有效性是定性范式的核心，并试图明确强调定性或混合方法可以有效地填补的方法学空白。在这样做的过程中，我们讨论了可能特别有助于提高听力科学中生态有效性的定性方法，并探索了它们在该领域的应用范围。这些方法可以应用于广泛的听力健康研究问题，以独特的方式呈现人们对疾病和残疾的体验，以细微的方式表明个人健康和疾病的不同程度。我们承认并赞扬当前听力科学中定性方法的扩展，并提出了提高生态有效性的建议，无论是在未来研究的设计中，还是在更广泛的研究周期中。我们呼吁定性研究人员努力实现透明度、严谨性和可信度，并强调如果要使定性方法为有效的、高效的研究策略做出贡献，就需要克服的挑战。为了促进高质量研究成果在实践中的转移，我们强调需要协同工作，创建一种研究文化，促进生态有效研究设计的共同制定，不仅涉及听力研究人员，还涉及实施科学家、听力保健专业人员，最重要的是，涉及那些听力损失的人，因为这些努力可能会对他们产生影响。
