Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, Food Quality and Design, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Plant Sciences, Division of Mathematical and Statistical Methods-Biometris, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Nurs Inq. 2022 Jul;29(3):e12465. doi: 10.1111/nin.12465. Epub 2021 Sep 25.
One challenge for those reading methodological debates in low consensus fields is determining the outcome when participants do not share standards. When parties to a debate do not agree on the standards to be used in assessing their arguments (i.e., quality), it may be useful to ask first if parties' contributions meet their own expectations (i.e., integrity). Most protocols for review of qualitative research specify some form of quality assessment. These protocols normally require some test of internal coherence. Coherence is also relevant when describing the match between a rebuttal and the argument it answers. In 2019, Nursing Inquiry published a critique and rebuttal of the methods used by the Joanna Briggs Institute. In this essay, we attempted to use the Joanna Briggs Institute's own quality assessment standards to assess their rebuttal of this fundamental critique. We found it possible to use the Joanna Briggs Institute's own quality assessment standards to assess this rebuttal, and we found that JBI's rebuttal did not meet their own standards.
对于那些阅读低共识领域方法学争论的人来说，一个挑战是确定当参与者不同意用于评估他们论点的标准（即质量）时会出现什么结果。当辩论的各方不同意用于评估他们论点的标准（即质量）时，首先询问各方的贡献是否符合他们自己的期望（即完整性）可能会很有用。大多数定性研究审查的方案都规定了某种形式的质量评估。这些方案通常需要对内部一致性进行某种测试。在描述反驳与回答的论点之间的匹配时，一致性也是相关的。2019 年，《护理探索》发表了一篇对 Joanna Briggs 研究所使用方法的批评和反驳。在这篇文章中，我们试图使用 Joanna Briggs 研究所自己的质量评估标准来评估他们对这一基本批评的反驳。我们发现，使用 Joanna Briggs 研究所自己的质量评估标准来评估这一批判是可行的，而且我们发现 JBI 的反驳不符合他们自己的标准。
