gms | German Medical Science

Background: Qualitative, or interpretive-hermeneutical, research represents a central approach to generate new knowledge in midwifery whereby the subjective perspective of women and their family members as well as of midwives is addressed. Qualitative research makes an important contribution to fundamental research. Combined with quantitative research, it facilitates the understanding and meaningful interpretation of quantitative data by exploring the intents, experiences, and actions both of users and providers of care.

However, qualitative research must also stand up to scrutiny based on scientific quality criteria, otherwise its non-quantitative approach appears arbitrary, indiscriminate and therefore non-scientific. In quantitative research, in which hypotheses are tested, the classic quality criteria, namely validity, reliability, and objectivity, are applied in order to appraise the quality of its methodological approaches. This is particularly true in the case of validation of psychometric assessment instruments.

Question: In what way should the scientific quality criteria (validity, reliability, and objectivity) be applied to qualitative research, particularly interpretive-hermeneutical and reconstructive research, if the aim is to appraise their scientific integrity and rigor?

Objective: The objective of the presentation is the literature based discussion of the quality criteria’s relevance for qualitative, or interpretive-hermeneutical, research.

Method: The subject of inquiry, i.e. the unit of investigation, and the researcher’s proximity to it are important aspects when appraising the validity of qualitative approaches. In order to assess the validity of interpretive-hermeneutical methodological approaches, Whittemore, Chase und Mandle (2001) suggest the following validity criteria: credibility, authenticity, criticality, and integrity (primary criteria) and explictness, vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and sensitivity (secondary criteria).

To assess consistency of findings in qualitative research, a quite different conception of the term reliability is suggested by various German authors in order to differentiate it from the term used in quantitative research: „Repräsentanz“ (Loos & Schäffer 2001), „Qualitative Repräsentation“ (Kruse 2010) oder „Konzeptuelle Repräsentativität“ (Strübing 2004). It addresses the comparability of data, the replicability of results, and interpersonal scrutinizing reciprocity. Moreover, the concept of generalizability is of major interest: it is determined by the chosen methodological approach, the research question, and the aim of investigation while at the same time it is inherently methodologically related to the selection of participants, or rather the subject of inquiry, the system of data collection, and data analysis.

Objectivity is discussed with regard to interpersonal scrutiny and means of verification as well as the perspective of the researcher.

Results: In order to appraise the quality of qualitative, or interpretative-hermeneutical, research, the scientific quality criteria applied must consider the methodology, the unit of investigation as well as the intent of generalizing the results.