To conclude this chapter on quality criteria we wish to warn against a rigid use of checklists and quality criteria in qualitative research and to argue instead for flexible use. Moreover this also applies to quantitative research.
Barbour criticizes the widespread use and description of assumed quality indicators like theoretical sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, and triangulation in scientific articles, as an unequivocal guarantee of robustness. These dimensions of qualitative research should be embedded within a broader understanding of the qualitative research design and not “stuck on as a badge of merit” (Barbour, 2001, p. 1115).
We agree with Walsh and Downe (Walsh, 2006) that a checklist is indicative of good quality research, but not a guarantee.
- Although in quantitative health sciences research, there exist widely-recognised guidelines, no comparable standardised guidelines exist for qualitative research.
- Among qualitative researchers there is a debate going on between those demanding for explicit criteria, for example in order to serve systematic reviewing and Evidence-Based Practice, and those who argue that such criteria are neither necessary nor desirable.
- The framework of Walsh and Downe as an comprehensible example of quality criteria checklist to appraise qualitative research studies. The grid of Côté and Turgeon is more simple and could be recommended as tool for evaluation in KCE reports.