...
首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative health research >A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research.
【24h】

A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research.

机译:三种在线评估工具在定性研究中评估有效性的能力的比较分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The concept of validity has been a central component in critical appraisal exercises evaluating the methodological quality of quantitative studies. Reactions by qualitative researchers have been mixed in relation to whether or not validity should be applied to qualitative research and if so, what criteria should be used to distinguish high-quality articles from others. We compared three online critical appraisal instruments' ability to facilitate an assessment of validity. Many reviewers have used the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) tool to complete their critical appraisal exercise; however, CASP appears to be less sensitive to aspects of validity than the evaluation tool for qualitative studies (ETQS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. The ETQS provides detailed instructions on how to interpret criteria; however, it is the JBI tool, with its focus on congruity, that appears to be the most coherent.
机译:有效性的概念一直是评估定量研究方法学质量的重要评估活动的重要组成部分。定性研究人员对是否应在定性研究中应用有效性方面的反应是混合的,如果是,则应使用什么标准将高质量的文章与其他文章区分开。我们比较了三种在线关键评估工具促进有效性评估的能力。许多评论者使用了关键评估技能计划(CASP)工具来完成他们的关键评估练习;但是,相比于定性研究的评估工具(ETQS)和乔安娜·布里格斯学院(JBI)的工具,CASP对有效性方面的敏感性似乎较低。 ETQS提供了有关如何解释标准的详细说明;但是,JBI工具(最注重一致性)似乎是最一致的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号