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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 64-75 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | International Journal of Qualitative Methods |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2009 Mar |
| Externally published | Yes |
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
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS