Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Appraisal of Qualitative Studies

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

  • 1029 Accesses

Abstract

The appraisal of health research is an essential skill required of readers in order to determine the extent to which the findings may inform evidence-based policy and practice. The appraisal of qualitative research remains highly contentious, and there is a lack of consensus regarding a standard approach to appraising qualitative studies. Different guides and tools are available for the critical appraisal of qualitative research. While these guides propose different criteria for assessment, overarching principles of rigor have been widely adopted, and these include credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, and reflexivity. This chapter will discuss the importance of appraising qualitative research, the principles and techniques for establishing rigor, and future directions regarding the use of guidelines to appraise qualitative research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anyan F. The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: a focus on qualitative research interview. Qual Rep. 2013;18(18):1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ: Br Med J. 2001;322(7294):1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CASP. CASP qualitative research checklist. http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/dded87_25658615020e427da194a325e7773d42.pdf. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2017).

  • Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(3):223–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, Miller T, Smith J, Young B, … Jones D. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):42–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacomini MK, Cook DJ, Group, E.-B. M. W. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA. 2000;284(3):357–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, … Sterne JA. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill A, Spittlehouse C. Evidence based medicine-what is critical appraisal. Newmarket: Heyward Med Commun; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenwood K, Pigeon N. Qualitative research and psychological theorising. Br J Psychol. 1992;83(1):97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitto SC, Chesters J, Grbich C. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust. 2008;188(4):243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger RA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Singapore: Sage; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a1035–a1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong, P. Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. Sage Publications. 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln YS, Guba EG. But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. N Dir Eval. 1986;1986(30):73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320(7226):50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In: Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. 2007. p. 82–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyrick J. What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. J Health Psychol. 2006;11(5):799–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K. 20 qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. Jackie Chandler (ed.) In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. United Kingdom: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. p. 571.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8(3):341–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Malden: Blackwell; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rao D, Kekwaletswe T, Hosek S, Martinez J, Rodriguez F. Stigma and social barriers to medication adherence with urban youth living with HIV. AIDS Care. 2007;19(1):28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Råheim M, Magnussen LH, Sekse RJT, Lunde Å, Jacobsen T, Blystad A. Researcher–researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being. 2016;11(1):30996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(2):179–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shorey S, Dennis CL, Bridge S, Chong YS, Holroyd E, He HG. First-time fathers’ postnatal experiences and support needs: a descriptive qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73:2987–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, and Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluatoin: A framework for assessing research evidence, Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, London: Cabinet Office. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong A, Dew MA. Qualitative research in transplantation: ensuring relevance and rigor. Transplantation. 2016;100(4):710–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health C. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Camilla S. Hanson, Angela Ju & Allison Tong

  2. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia

    Camilla S. Hanson, Angela Ju & Allison Tong

Authors
  1. Camilla S. Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Ju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allison Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camilla S. Hanson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Western Sydney Univ, School of Science & Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Hanson, C.S., Ju, A., Tong, A. (2018). Appraisal of Qualitative Studies. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_119-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_119-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation