Critiquing Qualitative Research Using Five Standards

Standard 1:Descriptive Vividness The site, subjects (informants) , experience of collecting data, and thinking of the researcher during data collection must be described so clearly that the reader has a sense of personally experiencing the event Threats – Failure to include essential descriptive information Lack of clarity or credibility in description Inadequate time or observational skills for vivid description No indication of validation of findings with subjects Inadequate skill in descriptive narrative writing

Standard 2: Methodological Congruence Documentation rigor requires identifying the philosophy and the methodological approach the researcher used. It requires clear, concise presentation of subjects, purpose, philosophy, significance, literature review (except for phenomenological study) research questions, assumptions, researcher credentials, ethical implications, data-gathering strategies, data analysis strategies, theoretical development, conclusions, implications for practice, suggestions for further study Threat – failure to present all elements accurately or clearly

Standard 2: Methodological Congruence Procedural rigor requies that the researcher clearly state the steps taken to ensure that data were accurately recorded and that data obtained are reperesentative of the data as a whole. Threats include – Asking the wrong questions or untrained data collectors Misinformation from the informant Lack of informant observation and/or recall Insufficient data and/or time spent Inappropriate access or selection or site or subject

Standard 2: Methodological Congruence Ethical Rigor requires the researcher to recognize and discuss the ethical implications related to the study to ensure that the rights of subjects were protected. Threats – Failure to inform subjects of their rights or obtaino informed consent Failure to ensure protection of subjects’ rights

Standard 2: Methodological Congruence Auditability is the rigorous development of a decision trail so that a second reader could use the original data and decision trail to arrive at conclusions similar to those of the original researcher. Threats – Inadequate description of data collection process Raw date was insufficient to make judgments Failure to develop or identify decision rules for arriving at ratings or judgments Other researchers couldn’t arrive at similar conclusions Failure to record decisions, data on which they were based and reasoning

Standard 3: Analytical Preciseness The researcher must transform concrete data across several layers of abstraction. This requires the researcher to identify and record the decision-making process through which the transformations are made. Threats – Interpretive statements do not correspond with findings Categories, themes or theoretical statements fail to set forth a whole picture Hypotheses or propositions cannot be verified by data or are not presented in the report The conclusions are not based on the data gathered

Standard 4: Theoretical Connectedness The theoretical schema developed from the study must be clearly expressed, logically consistent, reflective of the data and compatible with the knowledge base of nursing. Threats – Inadequate clarification of concepts (definitions) Relationships among concepts are not clearly expressed or are not validated by data The theory developed fails to give a meaningful picture of the phenomenon under study A conceptual framework r map is not derived from the data No clear connection is made between the data and nursing frameworks

Standard 5: Heuristic Relevance The reader must be able to recognize the phenomenon described in the study, its theoretical significance, its applicability to nursing practice and its influence on future research Intuitive recognition indicates that the theory derived from the data has meaning within the reader’s personal knowledge base. Threats - The phenomenon is poorly described The reader is unfamiliar with it The description is not consistent with common meanings or experiences

Standard 5: Heuristic Relevance Relationship to the existing body of knowledge requires that there be similarities between the current knowledge base and the study findings and that differences be explored by the researcher. Threats – The researcher fails to examine the existing body of knowledge The process studied is not related to nursing and health

Standard 5: Heuristic Relevance Applicability means that nurses should be able to integrate the research findings into their knowledge base and apply them in nursing practice. Threats – The findings are not relevant to nursing practice The findings are not important for the discipline of nursing - don’t add to knowledge