Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations

Deborah J. Cohen and Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Annals of Family Medicine July 2008, 6 (4) 331-339; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.818
Deborah J. Cohen
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin F. Crabtree
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Common Paradigms in Health Care Research

    ParadigmAssumptions
    PositivismThere is a real world of objects apart from people
    Researchers can know this reality and use symbols to accurately describe, represent and explain this reality
    Researchers can compare their claims against this objective reality. This allows for prediction, control, and empirical verification
    RealismThere are real-world objects apart from people
    Researchers can only know reality from their perspective of it
    We cannot separate ourselves from what we know; however, objectivity is an ideal researchers strive for through careful sampling and specific techniques
    It is possible to evaluate the extent to which objectivity or truth is attained. This can be evaluated by a community of scholars and those who are studied
    InterpretivismReality as we know it is constructed intersubjectively. Meaning and under- standing are developed socially and experientially
    We cannot separate ourselves from what we know. Who we are and how we understand the world are linked
    Researchers’ values are inherent in all phases of research. Truth is negotiated through dialogue
    Findings or knowledge claims are created as an investigation proceeds and emerge through dialogue and negotiations of meanings among community members (both scholars and the community at large)
    All interpretations are located in a particular context, setting, and moment
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Verification Techniques Used in Qualitative Research

    TechniqueDefinition
    TriangulationUsing multiple data sources in an investigation to produce understanding
    Peer review/ debriefingThe “process of exposing oneself to a disinterested peer in a manner paralleling an analytical session and for the purpose of exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer’s mind”
    External audits/ auditingAuditing involves having a researcher not involved in the research process examine both the process and product of the research study. The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and evaluate whether the findings, interpretations, and conclusions are supported by the data
    Member checkingData, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members of those groups from whom the data were originally obtained. This can be done both formally and informally, as opportunities for member checks may arise during the normal course of observation and conversation

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendixes

    Supplemental Appendix 1. Search Strategy for Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care; Supplemental Appendix 2. Publications Analyzed: Health Care Journals and Frequently Referenced Books and Book Chapters (1980-2005) That Posited Criteria for �Good� Qualitative Research.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendix 1 - PDF file, 1 page, 76 KB
    • Supplemental data: Appendix 2 - PDF file, 8 pages, 170 KB
  • In Brief

    Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations

    Deborah J. Cohen , and colleagues

    Background Qualitative research methods are increasingly used in clinical and health care research. This article identifies standards of good qualitative research as described in the health care literature, as well as lessons the authors learned during this process.

    What This Study Found The authors identified 7 criteria for good qualitative research: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. Points 5 through 7 should not be applied generically, but should take into account the approach used by the author or researcher.

    Implications

    • Researchers need to learn about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research based on the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 6 (4)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 6 (4)
Vol. 6, Issue 4
1 Jul 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • The Issue in Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations
Deborah J. Cohen, Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2008, 6 (4) 331-339; DOI: 10.1370/afm.818

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations
Deborah J. Cohen, Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2008, 6 (4) 331-339; DOI: 10.1370/afm.818
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Study protocol for Active Start Active Future: a randomised control trial of an early behaviour-change intervention targeting physical activity participation and sedentary behaviour in young children with cerebral palsy living in South East Queensland, Australia
  • Exploring the facilitators and barriers to addressing social medias impact on anxiety within primary care: a qualitative study
  • Understanding experiences, unmet needs and priorities related to post-stroke aphasia care: stage one of an experience-based co-design project
  • 'Ive never been so stressed in my life: a qualitative analysis of young adults lived experience amidst pandemic restrictions in Prince Edward Island, Canada
  • Patient-report and caregiver-report measures of rehabilitation service use following acquired brain injury: a systematic review
  • Facilitators of and barriers to perinatal telepsychiatry care: a qualitative study
  • Making research ethics work for global health: towards a more agile and collaborative approach
  • How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?
  • How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?
  • Qualitative study informing the development and content validity of the HAND-Q: a modular patient-reported outcome measure for hand conditions
  • Primary school staff perspectives of school closures due to COVID-19, experiences of schools reopening and recommendations for the future: a qualitative survey in Wales
  • Methodological standards for qualitative and mixed methods patient centered outcomes research
  • Attracting neurology's next generation: A qualitative study of specialty choice and perceptions
  • A Review of Strategies for Enhancing Clarity and Reader Accessibility of Qualitative Research Results
  • Lessons for leadership and culture when doctors become second victims: a systematic literature review
  • Improving access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations in Australia and Canada: protocol for a mixed-method evaluation of six complex interventions
  • The structural quality of maternal health services in primary health care facilities in Tanzania: Findings from a baseline study
  • Shifting Implementation Science Theory to Empower Primary Care Practices
  • Fundamentals of qualitative analysis in family medicine
  • International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a cross-cultural patient-reported outcome and experience measure for hand conditions (HAND-Q)
  • What are the experiences of seeking, receiving and providing FGM-related healthcare? Perspectives of health professionals and women/girls who have undergone FGM: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence
  • Living with chronic migraine: a qualitative study on female patients' perspectives from a specialised headache clinic in Spain
  • Outcomes of Integrated Behavioral Health with Primary Care
  • Understanding qualitative research in health care
  • Patient Navigators Connecting Patients to Community Resources to Improve Diabetes Outcomes
  • Laboratory testing in general practice: a patient safety blind spot
  • Experiences of First-Time Mothers With Persistent Pelvic Girdle Pain After Childbirth: Descriptive Qualitative Study
  • Designing Clinical Space for the Delivery of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care
  • The Enduring Impact of What Clinicians Say to People With Low Back Pain
  • Access to medicines in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC): a scoping study
  • Are patients discharged with care? A qualitative study of perceptions and experiences of patients, family members and care providers
  • GPs' considerations in multimorbidity management: a qualitative study
  • Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research
  • In This Issue: Community Care, Healing, and Excellence in Research
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Artificial Intelligence Tools for Preconception Cardiomyopathy Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
  • Family Physicians in Focused Practice in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Level Study of Trends From 1993/1994 Through 2021/2022
  • Seven Opportunities for Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care Electronic Visits: Qualitative Study of Staff and Patient Views
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Qualitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Research capacity building

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine