Hamberg K, Johansson E, Lindgren G, Westman G
Department of Family Medicine, University of Umeå, Norrland's University Hospital, Sweden.
Fam Pract. 1994 Jun;11(2):176-81. doi: 10.1093/fampra/11.2.176.
The increase in qualitative research in family medicine raises a demand for critical discussions about design, methods and conclusions. This article shows how scientific claims for truthful findings and neutrality can be assessed. Established concepts such as validity, reliability, objectivity and generalization cannot be used in qualitative research. Alternative criteria for scientific rigour, initially introduced by Lincoln and Guba, are presented: credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. These criteria have been applied to a research project, a qualitative study with in-depth interviews with female patients suffering from chronic pain in the locomotor system. The interview data were analysed on the basis of grounded theory. The proposed indicators for scientific rigour were shown to be useful when applied to the research project. Several examples are given. Difficulties in the use of the alternative criteria are also discussed.
家庭医学领域质性研究的增加引发了对设计、方法和结论进行批判性讨论的需求。本文展示了如何评估关于真实研究结果和中立性的科学主张。诸如效度、信度、客观性和普遍性等既定概念无法用于质性研究。文中介绍了最初由林肯和古巴提出的科学严谨性的替代标准：可信度、可靠性、可证实性和可转移性。这些标准已应用于一个研究项目，即一项对患有运动系统慢性疼痛的女性患者进行深入访谈的质性研究。访谈数据基于扎根理论进行了分析。结果表明，所提出的科学严谨性指标应用于该研究项目时是有用的。文中给出了几个例子。还讨论了使用替代标准时遇到的困难。
