[Reconstituting evaluation methods based on both qualitative and quantitative paradigms].

Hiroaki Miyata, Suguru Okubo, Satoru Yoshie, Ichiro Kai

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Debate about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative paradigms is often muddled and confusing and the clutter of terms and arguments has resulted in the concepts becoming obscure and unrecognizable. In this study we conducted content analysis regarding evaluation methods of qualitative healthcare research. We extracted descriptions on four types of evaluation paradigm (validity/credibility, reliability/credibility, objectivity/confirmability, and generalizability/transferability), and classified them into subcategories. In quantitative research, there has been many evaluation methods based on qualitative paradigms, and vice versa. Thus, it might not be useful to consider evaluation methods of qualitative paradigm are isolated from those of quantitative methods. Choosing practical evaluation methods based on the situation and prior conditions of each study is an important approach for researchers.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)83-94
Number of pages12
JournalNippon eiseigaku zasshi. Japanese journal of hygiene
Volume66
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Jan
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Qualitative Research
Health Services Research
Reproducibility of Results
Research Personnel
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

[Reconstituting evaluation methods based on both qualitative and quantitative paradigms]. / Miyata, Hiroaki; Okubo, Suguru; Yoshie, Satoru; Kai, Ichiro.

In: Nippon eiseigaku zasshi. Japanese journal of hygiene, Vol. 66, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 83-94.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{32f874eb6a0848b99a3a5653134d2172,
title = "[Reconstituting evaluation methods based on both qualitative and quantitative paradigms].",
abstract = "Debate about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative paradigms is often muddled and confusing and the clutter of terms and arguments has resulted in the concepts becoming obscure and unrecognizable. In this study we conducted content analysis regarding evaluation methods of qualitative healthcare research. We extracted descriptions on four types of evaluation paradigm (validity/credibility, reliability/credibility, objectivity/confirmability, and generalizability/transferability), and classified them into subcategories. In quantitative research, there has been many evaluation methods based on qualitative paradigms, and vice versa. Thus, it might not be useful to consider evaluation methods of qualitative paradigm are isolated from those of quantitative methods. Choosing practical evaluation methods based on the situation and prior conditions of each study is an important approach for researchers.",
author = "Hiroaki Miyata and Suguru Okubo and Satoru Yoshie and Ichiro Kai",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "66",
pages = "83--94",
journal = "Nihon eiseigaku zasshi. Japanese journal of hygiene",
issn = "0021-5082",
publisher = "Japanese Society for Hygiene",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - [Reconstituting evaluation methods based on both qualitative and quantitative paradigms].

AU - Miyata, Hiroaki

AU - Okubo, Suguru

AU - Yoshie, Satoru

AU - Kai, Ichiro

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Debate about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative paradigms is often muddled and confusing and the clutter of terms and arguments has resulted in the concepts becoming obscure and unrecognizable. In this study we conducted content analysis regarding evaluation methods of qualitative healthcare research. We extracted descriptions on four types of evaluation paradigm (validity/credibility, reliability/credibility, objectivity/confirmability, and generalizability/transferability), and classified them into subcategories. In quantitative research, there has been many evaluation methods based on qualitative paradigms, and vice versa. Thus, it might not be useful to consider evaluation methods of qualitative paradigm are isolated from those of quantitative methods. Choosing practical evaluation methods based on the situation and prior conditions of each study is an important approach for researchers.

AB - Debate about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative paradigms is often muddled and confusing and the clutter of terms and arguments has resulted in the concepts becoming obscure and unrecognizable. In this study we conducted content analysis regarding evaluation methods of qualitative healthcare research. We extracted descriptions on four types of evaluation paradigm (validity/credibility, reliability/credibility, objectivity/confirmability, and generalizability/transferability), and classified them into subcategories. In quantitative research, there has been many evaluation methods based on qualitative paradigms, and vice versa. Thus, it might not be useful to consider evaluation methods of qualitative paradigm are isolated from those of quantitative methods. Choosing practical evaluation methods based on the situation and prior conditions of each study is an important approach for researchers.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891645554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891645554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 66

SP - 83

EP - 94

JO - Nihon eiseigaku zasshi. Japanese journal of hygiene

JF - Nihon eiseigaku zasshi. Japanese journal of hygiene

SN - 0021-5082

IS - 1

ER -