A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews

The constant comparative method (CCM) together with theoretical sampling constitutethe core of qualitative analysis in the grounded theory approach and in other types ofqualitative research. Since the application of the method remains rather unclear, researchers do not know how to `go about' the CCM in their research practice. This study contributes to a purposeful approach of the CCM in order to systematize the analysis process and to increase the traceability and verification of the analyses. The step by step approach is derived from and illustrated with an empirical study into the experience of multiple sclerosis (MS) by patients and their spousal care providers. In this study five different steps were distinguished on the basis of four criteria: (1) the data involved and the overall analysis activities, (2) the aim, (3) the results and (4) the questions asked. It is concluded that systematization of qualitative analysis results from the researcher using a sound plan for conducting CCM regarding these four aspects.     

Use of hypotheses for analysis of variance models: challenging the current practice

In social science research, hypotheses about group means are commonly tested using analysis of variance. While deemed to be formulated as specifically as possible to test social science theory, they are often defined in general terms. In this article we use two studies to explore the current practice concerning group mean hypotheses. The first study consists of a content analysis of published articles where the reconstructed reality of hypotheses use is explored. The second study is a qualitative interview study with researchers, adding information about daily practice. We argue that, at present, hypotheses are not used to their utmost potential and that progress can be made by using informative hypotheses instead of the current non-informative hypotheses. Informative hypotheses capitalize on knowledge that researchers already possess and enable them to focus in their proceeding projects. The substantive focus of our work is the case of applied psychology.     

Guidance for deciding upon use of primary mixed methods studies in research synthesis: lessons learned in childhood trauma

When reviewing literature, mixed methods studies (MMS) are increasingly retrieved, yet it is unclear how they should be dealt with in a research synthesis. In this article we examine the inclusion of primary MMS in research synthesis, based on experiences with a meta-analysis (MA) and a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) in childhood trauma. The aim is to offer guidance for reviewers in deciding upon the use of MMS. This review article examines (1) the qualitative component, (2) the quantitative component, as well as (3) the third component of combined yield for use in a MA, a QES or a mixed studies review. A systematic search for MMS in the field of childhood trauma from January 1980 to October 2011 resulted in twelve MMS. Eight qualitative components, six quantitative components and one combined yield could have been included in a MA or QES. Exclusion of qualitative components was due to insufficient quality. Quantitative components were excluded because sample sizes were too small, different outcome measures than ours were used or no adequate statistics were provided. Yield could not be included because it was absent, outside the scope or otherwise unspecified. Finally, we offer flow charts with clear steps to assist researchers in deciding upon the use of components of MMS. Our study demonstrates that MMS can cover new areas and therefore cannot be neglected in a research synthesis.     

In search of content validity: facet analysis as a qualitative method to improve questionnaire design

In this paper, two scales are examined for the measurement of self-regulation. The item content is evaluated for its specific usefulness for measuring self-regulation of obesity patients. Qualitative facet analysis (QFA), an application of Guttmann’s Facet Theory, is used to investigate whether item content sufficiently covers the intended content area. This form of content analysis constitutes a systematic, effective and critical tool for improving the content validity of questionnaires. It discovers topics that are underrepresented or overrepresented. The method offers a way to clarify the relationship between concrete item phrases and the desired content as defined by construct and theory. It allows the researcher to improve his or her understanding of the items as a stimulus and of the similarities of items, and allows the formulation of a possible structure for confirmative factor analysis. Various ways to improve the content of both scales are identified.