Inclusive critical appraisal of qualitative and quantitative findings in evidence synthesis

Author:

Olaghere Ajima1ORCID,Wilson David B.2ORCID,Kimbrell Catherine2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Criminal Justice Temple University Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

2. George Mason Univesity Fairfax Virginia USA

Abstract

AbstractA diversity of approaches for critically appraising qualitative and quantitative evidence exist and emphasize different aspects. These approaches lack clear processes to facilitate rating the overall quality of the evidence for aggregated findings that combine qualitative and quantitative evidence. We draw on a meta‐aggregation of implementation and process evaluations to illustrate a method for critically appraising empirical findings generated from qualitative and quantitative studies. This method includes a rubric for standardizing assessments of the overall quality of evidence in an evidence synthesis or mixed‐method systematic review. The method first assesses the credibility of each finding extracted from a study. These individual assessments then feed into an overall score for any synthesized finding generated from the meta‐aggregation. We argue that this approach provides a balanced and inclusive method of critical appraisal by first assessing individual findings, rather than studies, using flexible criteria applicable to a range of primary study methods to derive an overall assessment of synthesized findings.

Funder

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Education

Reference31 articles.

1. BruntonG OliverS OliverK LorencT.A Synthesis of Research Addressing children's Young people's and Parents Views of Walking and Cycling for Transport. Tech. rep. The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre.2006.

2. SpencerL RitchieJ LewisJ DillonL.Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. Tech. rep. National Centre for Social Research.2003.

3. Appraising the quality of qualitative research

4. Obstacles to the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Belgium: A Worked Example of Meta-Aggregation

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3