The QATSDD critical appraisal tool: comments and critiques

被引:54
作者
Fenton, Lara [1 ]
Lauckner, Heidi [2 ]
Gilbert, Robert [3 ]
机构
[1] Dalhousie Univ, Sch Hlth & Human Performance, Box 1500 South St, Halifax, NS B3K 1T1, Canada
[2] Dalhousie Univ, Sch Occupat Therapy, Halifax, NS B3K 1T1, Canada
[3] Dalhousie Univ, Sch Hlth Sci, Halifax, NS B3K 1T1, Canada
关键词
integrative reviews; qualitative and quantitative methodology; synthesis; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1111/jep.12487
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Rationale, aims and objectives The aim of this research note is to reflect on the effectiveness of the QATSDD tool for its intended use in critical appraisals of synthesis work such as integrative reviews. Methods A seven-member research team undertook a critical appraisal of qualitative and quantitative studies using the QATSDD. Results and Conclusion We believe that the tool can spur useful dialogue among researchers and increase in-depth understanding of reviewed papers, including the strengths and limitations of the literature. To increase the clarity of the process, we suggest further definition of the language in each indicator and inclusion of explicit examples for each criterion. We would also like to see the authors outline clear parameters around the use of the tool, essentially stating that the tool should be used in synthesis work for studies of mixed methods or work that includes qualitative and quantitative research informed by a positivist paradigm. In the context of an appropriate team composition, the tool can be a useful mechanism for guiding people who are coming together to discuss the merits of studies across multiple methodologies and disciplines.
引用
收藏
页码:1125 / 1128
页数:4
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   RANDOMIZATION [J].
ALTMAN, DG .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1991, 302 (6791) :1481-1482
[2]  
[Anonymous], LEISURE SCI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1998, USING LISREL STRUCTU
[4]  
[Anonymous], GUIDELINES FOR CRITI
[5]  
Denzin N.K., 1994, Handbook of qualitative research
[6]   Three approaches to qualitative content analysis [J].
Hsieh, HF ;
Shannon, SE .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2005, 15 (09) :1277-1288
[7]  
King M, 2005, Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials
[8]  
Lauckner H, 2012, QUAL REP, V17
[9]  
Markula P, 2011, QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR PHYSICAL CULTURE, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230305632
[10]  
Schulz Kenneth F, 2010, Open Med, V4, pe60, DOI [10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001, 10.1136/bmj.c869, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004]