抄録
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.
| 本文言語 | English |
|---|---|
| ページ(範囲) | 64-75 |
| ページ数 | 12 |
| ジャーナル | International Journal of Qualitative Methods |
| 巻 | 8 |
| 号 | 1 |
| DOI | |
| 出版ステータス | Published - 2009 3月 |
| 外部発表 | はい |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- 教育
フィンガープリント
「Reconsidering Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Adequacy in Health Care Research: An Integrative Framework of Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria」の研究トピックを掘り下げます。これらがまとまってユニークなフィンガープリントを構成します。引用スタイル
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS