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
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