Reconsidering Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Adequacy in Health Care Research

An Integrative Framework of Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria

Dados Bibliográficos

ID2410265
AutoresHiroaki Miyata (0000-0001-8800-6201), Ichiro Kai (0000-0002-7883-7383)
Ano2009
Volume8
Fascículo1
Páginas64-75
Data de publicação2009-03-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069
EditoraSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/160940690900800106
OpenAlexW1661850499
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas16
Referências citadas34

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

Credibility · Dependability · Epistemology · Generalizability theory · Management science · Objectivity (philosophy · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Transferability · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Psychology