Analysis of the criteria for assessing the quality of qualita3ve research in the field of health sciences at an interna3onal level 

Exponential increase and development of qualitative research in the field of research on the health sciences   Existence of many grids of quality’s criteria   These are relatively unknown, not comparable, and sometimes even

contradictory!

Necessity to compare and define criteria shared by all researchers   Create guidelines by consensus

Adaptation of grids so as to make these comparable, Thematic, Lexical, Content Analyses, Creation of a glossary and a tool for evaluating the grids.

Preliminary results of lexical and content analyses:   Great variability in the number of criteria per grid; Different stated objectives of

the authors and variability in vocabulary and definitions. Difficulties in identifying the most relevant criteria and/or in comparing these grids.

  Grids differ in terms of objectives, but not on the basis of discipline. The main differences are between grids with criteria on "practical value" of research and grids with criteria on "methodological value”.

Methodology including interdisciplinary approach Co-applicants: Health Psychology, Medical Ethics, and Sociology + Creation of Assessment Panels (SAPs): Medicine and Epidemiology ; Nursing, Education and Literacy ; Social Sciences and Public Health ; Psychiatry and Psychology.

Interdisciplinary work focus on readability, perceived usefulness, relevance, ease of application, and comprehensibility of each grid (each SAP received 20 grids).

•  Step 1: SAP members compared and chose grids judged most relevant •  Step 2: Dissemination of work and testing: SAP members found 4 peers to evaluate grids in their habitual work (as

reviewers, editors, authors, experts, etc.) •  Step 3: SAP members will work together to determine common and specific criteria, resulting from peers’ evaluations.

Guidelines will be established by consensus.

Interdisciplinary research is complex and difficult to organise… • Different disciplines = different definitions and approaches in health sciences • Different expectations about qualitative research • Divergent understandings of the meaning of “grids”, “qualitative”, “criteria”, etc. • Difficulty in finding peers due to long and tedious work required •  Time consuming (workshops + post workshops and organising grids appraisals

by peer users and SAPs)

… but rich in exchanges and exploration of the theme

Prof . Marie San-ago Delefosse (Project Director) & Prof Lazare Benaroyo & Dr Alain Kaufmann (Co‐Directors of the Project),  Chris-ne Bruchez & Sarah Lilian Stephen (Researchers) and Amaelle Gavin (Student Assistant) 

Each SAP Member 

Thus: each grid is tested by 3 experts 

Relevance of Research •  Propose guidelines obtained by

consensus between users

•  Increase the recognition of qualitative research and the number and quality of publications

•  Facilitate the appraisal of qualitative studies (for ethics committees, reviewers, experts, etc.)

Selection of Grids (133 81) Inclusion criteria Good diffusion, sufficiently developed, well structured, good citation, and representative of fields/disciplines

Exclusion criteria Purely theoretical, lack of defined criteria, same version of another grid, poor citation, poor diffusion

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. In Y. S. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 289-331). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320, 50-52. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Drawing and verifying conclusions. In Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 277-280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Santiago-Delefosse, M. (2004). Evaluer la qualité des publications. Quelles spécificités pour la recherche qualitative? Pratiques Psychologiques, 3, 243-254. Santiago-Delefosse, M. (2012). The relevance of L.S. Vygotsky's developmental perspective to the debate on methodology in psychological science. Philosophy Study, 2(8), 515-526.

(CR13I1_126983)