QUALITY CRITERIA FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ARTICLES
Abstract
Through the non-systematic review of scientific literature on qualitative research, the authors describe its particularities and present quality criteria for qualitative articles used internationally. Initially, qualitative research was contextualized in terms of philosophical paradigms and designs. Then, different considerations on quality criteria for qualitative research were discussed, in particular, those derived from the quantitative approach and others specifically developed for the qualitative approach. Finally, quality criteria presented in three international papers and used worldwide were systematized. Such criteria were displayed for readers in a table that may be used by authors, editors, and reviewers in order to enhance the quality of Brazilian papers.
Downloads
References
American Psychological Association. (2005). Policy statement on evidence-based practice in Psychology. American Psychological Association Statement on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. Recuperado de http://www.apa.org/practice/resources/evidence/evidence-based-statement.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2018). APA Style JARS - Journal Article Reporting Stardants. Recuperado de http://www.apastyle.org/jars/qual-table-1.pdf
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brinkmann, S. (2015). Perils and potentials in qualitative psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(2), 162-173. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9293-z
Clark, A. M., & Thompson, D. R. (2016). Five tips for writing qualitative research in high-impact journals: moving from #BMJnoQual. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1-3. doi: 10.1177/1609406916641250
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative e quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Investigação qualitativa e projeto de pesquisa: Escolhendo entre cinco abordagens. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Dixon-Woods, M., Shaw, R. L., Agarwal, S., Smith, J. A. (2004). The problem of appraising qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety, 13, 223-225. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.008714
Flick, U. (2009). Qualidade na pesquisa qualitativa. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Fontanella, B., Ricas, J., & Turato, E. (2008). Amostragem por saturação em pesquisas qualitativas em saúde: Contribuições teóricas. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 24(1), 17-27. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2008000100003
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. doi: 10.11777/1525822X05279903.
Gunther, H. (2006). Pesquisa qualitativa versus pesquisa quantitativa: Esta é a questão? Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 22(2), 201-210. doi: 10.1590/S0102-37722006000200010
Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J. E., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research: Criteria for authors and assessors in the submission and assessment of qualitative research articles for the Medical Journal of Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243 - 246. Recuperado de https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2008/188/4/quality-qualitative-research
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753-1760. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444
Morrow, S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. USA: Southern Illinoins University Press.
Ollaik, L., & Ziller, H. M. (2012). Concepções de validade em pesquisas qualitativas. Educação & Pesquisa, 38(1), 229-241. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/v38n1/ep448.pdf
O’Brien, B., Harris, I., Beckman, T., Reed, D., & Cook, D. (2014). Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
Saccol, A. Z. (2009). Um retorno ao básico: Compreendendo os paradigmas de pesquisa e sua aplicação na pesquisa em administração. Revista de Administração da UFSM, 2(2), 250-269. doi: 10.5902/198346591555
Sampieri, R., Collado, C., & Lucio, M. (2013). Definições dos enfoques quantitativo e qualitativo, suas semelhanças e diferenças. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Santos, S. S. dos, & Dell'Aglio, D. D. (2013). O processo de revelação do abuso sexual na percepção de mães. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 15(1), 50-64.
Santos, V. A. D., Costa, L. F., & Silva, A. X. D. (2011). As medidas protetivas na perspectiva de famílias em situação de violência sexual. Psico, 42(1), 77-86.
Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
Staller, K. M., & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2013). Successful qualitative articles: A tentative list of cautionary advice. Qualitative Social Work, 12(3), 247-253. doi: 10.1177/1473325012450483
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S., & Mandle, C. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.
As opiniões emitidas, são de exclusiva responsabilidade do(s) autor(es). Ao submeterem o manuscrito ao Conselho Editorial de Psicologia em Estudo, o(s) autor(es) assume(m) a responsabilidade de não ter previamente publicado ou submetido o mesmo manuscrito por outro periódico. Em caso de autoria múltipla, o manuscrito deve vir acompanhado de autorização assinada por todos os autores. Artigos aceitos para publicação passam a ser propriedade da revista, podendo ser remixados e reaproveitados conforme prevê a licença Creative Commons CC-BY.
The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the author (s). When submitting the manuscript to the Editorial Board of Study Psychology, the author (s) assumes responsibility for not having previously published or submitted the same manuscript by another journal. In case of multiple authorship, the manuscript must be accompanied by an authorization signed by all authors. Articles accepted for publication become the property of the journal, and can be remixed and reused as provided for in theby a license Creative Commons CC-BY.
