Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Reconsidering Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Adequacy in Health Care Research: An Integrative Framework of Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

It is important to reconsider evaluation criteria regarding scientific adequacy in health care research. In this article the authors review the four pairs of quantitative/qualitative paradigms. They discuss the use of evaluation criteria based on a pragmatic perspective after examining the epistemological issues behind the criteria. Validity/credibility is concerned with research framework, whereas reliability/dependability refers to the range of stability in observations, objectivity/ confirmability reflects influences between observers and subjects, and generalizability/transferability has epistemological differences in the way findings are applied. Qualitative studies should not always choose qualitative paradigms, and vice versa. If stability can be assumed to some extent in a qualitative study, it is better to use a quantitative paradigm. Regardless of whether it is quantitative or qualitative research, it is important to recognize the four epistemological axes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)64-75
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Mar
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • evaluation
  • generalizability
  • qualitative research
  • quantitative research
  • reliability
  • validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reconsidering Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Adequacy in Health Care Research: An Integrative Framework of Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this