Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Thrid Edition: Model and Guidelines

6 Evidence Appraisal: Research 135

questions such as, “Did the researcher attempt to control for extraneous vari-

ables with the use of careful subject-selection criteria? Did the researcher attempt

to minimize the potential for socially acceptable responses by the subject? Did

the study rely on documentation as the source of data? In methodological studies

(developing, testing, and evaluating research instruments and methods), were the

test subjects selected from the population for which the test will be used? Was the

survey response rate high enough to generalize findings to the target population?

For historical research studies, are the data authentic and genuine?”

Qualitative studies offer many challenges with respect to the question of valid-

ity. A number of ways to determine validity, or rigor, in qualitative research have

been postulated. Four common approaches to establish rigor (Saumure & Given,

2012) are:

■■ Transparency, or how clear the research process has been explained

■■ Credibility, or the extent to which data are representative

■■ Dependability, or that other researchers would draw the same or similar

conclusions when looking at the data

■■ Reflexivity, or how the researcher has reported the ways in which they

were involved in the research and may have influenced the study results

Issues of rigor in qualitative research are complex, so the EBP team should ap-

praise how well the researchers discuss how they determined validity for the par-

ticular study.

Meta-Syntheses (Level III Evidence)

Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research presents many challenges. It is

not surprising that EBP teams may feel at a loss in assessing the quality of meta-

synthesis. Approaching these reviews from a broad perspective enables the team

to look for indicators of quality that both quantitative and qualitative summative

research techniques have in common.