quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research frambach

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research

Affiliation.

1 Maastricht University.
PMID: 23531762
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f

PubMed Disclaimer

Related information

Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ovid Technologies, Inc.
Wolters Kluwer

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Support & FAQ

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research

Onderwijsontwikkeling & Onderwijsresearch
SHE School of Health Professions Education

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	552
Journal
Volume	88
Issue number	4
DOIs
Publication status	Published - Apr 2013

Education, Medical
Qualitative Research
Research Design
Journal Article

Access to Document

10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f

T1 - AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research

AU - Frambach, Janneke M

AU - van der Vleuten, Cees P M

AU - Durning, Steven J

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

KW - Education, Medical

KW - Humans

KW - Qualitative Research

KW - Research Design

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f

M3 - Article

C2 - 23531762

SN - 1040-2446

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f
Corpus ID: 39554180

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.

J. Frambach , C. V. D. van der Vleuten , S. Durning
Published in Academic medicine : journal… 1 April 2013
Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges

185 Citations

Exploring students’ perspectives on well-being and the change of united states medical licensing examination step 1 to pass/fail, assessment practices in continuing professional development activities in health professions: a scoping review, tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review, elevating the behavioral and social sciences in premedical training: mcat2015, the meaning of feedback: medical students’ view, selection as a learning experience: an exploratory study, using focus groups in medical education research: amee guide no. 91, emergency physicians’ perceptions of critical appraisal skills: a qualitative study, standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations, the introduction of advanced practice physiotherapy within dutch primary care is a quest for possibilities, added value, and mutual trust: a qualitative study amongst advanced practice physiotherapists and general practitioners.

Highly Influenced

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

🇺🇦 make metadata, not war

AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research

J.M. Frambach
C.P.M. van der Vleuten
S.J. Durning
Article / Letter to editor
NCEBP 7: Effective primary care and public health

Similar works

Radboud Repository

This paper was published in Radboud Repository .

Having an issue?

Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Regular Article
Open access
Published: 18 September 2021
Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research frambach

Drishti Yadav ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1

97k Accesses

45 Citations

71 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect. Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect. Improving Quality: Strategies . Section How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect. Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect. Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect. Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure 1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure 2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article Google Scholar

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

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.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Qualitative research
Evaluative criteria
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
Write for Us
BMJ Journals

Helen Noble 1 ,
Joanna Smith 2
1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast , Belfast , UK
2 School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield , Huddersfield , UK
Correspondence to Dr Helen Noble School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Rd, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK; helen.noble{at}qub.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Evaluating the quality of research is essential if findings are to be utilised in practice and incorporated into care delivery. In a previous article we explored ‘bias’ across research designs and outlined strategies to minimise bias. 1 The aim of this article is to further outline rigour, or the integrity in which a study is conducted, and ensure the credibility of findings in relation to qualitative research. Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative research and alternative terminology will be compared in relation to their application to qualitative research. In addition, some of the strategies adopted by qualitative researchers to enhance the credibility of their research are outlined.

Are the terms reliability and validity relevant to ensuring credibility in qualitative research?

Although the tests and measures used to establish the validity and reliability of quantitative research cannot be applied to qualitative research, there are ongoing debates about whether terms such as validity, reliability and generalisability are appropriate to evaluate qualitative research. 2–4 In the broadest context these terms are applicable, with validity referring to the integrity and application of the methods undertaken and the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data, while reliability describes consistency within the employed analytical procedures. 4 However, if qualitative methods are inherently different from quantitative methods in terms of philosophical positions and purpose, then alterative frameworks for establishing rigour are appropriate. 3 Lincoln and Guba 5 offer alternative criteria for demonstrating rigour within qualitative research namely truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. Table 1 outlines the differences in terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research.

View inline

Terminology and criteria used to evaluate the credibility of research findings

What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings?

Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply statistical methods for establishing validity and reliability of research findings, qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate methodological strategies to ensure the ‘trustworthiness’ of the findings. Such strategies include:

Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings; 6

Acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection and analysis; 3

Meticulous record keeping, demonstrating a clear decision trail and ensuring interpretations of data are consistent and transparent; 3 , 4

Establishing a comparison case/seeking out similarities and differences across accounts to ensure different perspectives are represented; 6 , 7

Including rich and thick verbatim descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings; 7

Demonstrating clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations 3 ;

Engaging with other researchers to reduce research bias; 3

Respondent validation: includes inviting participants to comment on the interview transcript and whether the final themes and concepts created adequately reflect the phenomena being investigated; 4

Data triangulation, 3 , 4 whereby different methods and perspectives help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. 8 , 9

Table 2 provides some specific examples of how some of these strategies were utilised to ensure rigour in a study that explored the impact of being a family carer to patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis. 10

Strategies for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research

In summary, it is imperative that all qualitative researchers incorporate strategies to enhance the credibility of a study during research design and implementation. Although there is no universally accepted terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research, we have briefly outlined some of the strategies that can enhance the credibility of study findings.

Sandelowski M
Lincoln YS ,
Barrett M ,
Mayan M , et al
Greenhalgh T
Lingard L ,

Twitter Follow Joanna Smith at @josmith175 and Helen Noble at @helnoble

Competing interests None.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	552
Number of pages	1
Journal
Volume	88
Issue number	4
State	Published - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

quantitative research Social Sciences 100%
qualitative research Social Sciences 78%

T1 - AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.

AU - Frambach, Janneke M.

AU - van der Vleuten, Cees P.M.

AU - Durning, Steven J.

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878242017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23531762

AN - SCOPUS:84878242017

JO - Unknown Journal

JF - Unknown Journal

Subscribe to journal Subscribe
Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

A synthesis of recommendations.

O’Brien, Bridget C. PhD; Harris, Ilene B. PhD; Beckman, Thomas J. MD; Reed, Darcy A. MD, MPH; Cook, David A. MD, MHPE

Dr. O’Brien is assistant professor, Department of Medicine and Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.

Dr. Harris is professor and head, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Dr. Beckman is professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Reed is associate professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Cook is associate director, Mayo Clinic Online Learning, research chair, Mayo Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, and professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Funding/Support: This study was funded in part by a research review grant from the Society for Directors of Research in Medical Education.

Other disclosures: None reported.

Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable.

Disclaimer: The funding agency had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Supplemental digital content for this article is available at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 .

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. O’Brien, Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, UCSF School of Medicine, Box 3202, 1855 Folsom St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94143-3202; e-mail: [email protected] .

Purpose

Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.

Method

The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback.

Results

The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met.

Conclusions

The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

Qualitative research contributes to the literature in many disciplines by describing, interpreting, and generating theories about social interactions and individual experiences as they occur in natural, rather than experimental, situations. 1–3 Some recent examples include studies of professional dilemmas, 4 medical students’ early experiences of workplace learning, 5 patients’ experiences of disease and interventions, 6–8 and patients’ perspectives about incident disclosures. 9 The purpose of qualitative research is to understand the perspectives/experiences of individuals or groups and the contexts in which these perspectives or experiences are situated. 1 , 2 , 10

Qualitative research is increasingly common and valued in the medical and medical education literature. 1 , 10–13 However, the quality of such research can be difficult to evaluate because of incomplete reporting of key elements. 14 , 15 Quality is multifaceted and includes consideration of the importance of the research question, the rigor of the research methods, the appropriateness and salience of the inferences, and the clarity and completeness of reporting. 16 , 17 Although there is much debate about standards for methodological rigor in qualitative research, 13 , 14 , 18–20 there is widespread agreement about the need for clear and complete reporting. 14 , 21 , 22 Optimal reporting would enable editors, reviewers, other researchers, and practitioners to critically appraise qualitative studies and apply and synthesize the results. One important step in improving the quality of reporting is to formulate and define clear reporting standards.

Authors have proposed guidelines for the quality of qualitative research, including those in the fields of medical education, 23–25 clinical and health services research, 26–28 and general education research. 29 , 30 Yet in nearly all cases, the authors do not describe how the guidelines were created, and often fail to distinguish reporting quality from the other facets of quality (e.g., the research question or methods). Several authors suggest standards for reporting qualitative research, 15 , 20 , 29–33 but their articles focus on a subset of qualitative data collection methods (e.g., interviews), fail to explain how the authors developed the reporting criteria, narrowly construe qualitative research (e.g., thematic analysis) in ways that may exclude other approaches, and/or lack specific examples to help others see how the standards might be achieved. Thus, there remains a compelling need for defensible and broadly applicable standards for reporting qualitative research.

We designed and carried out the present study to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research through a rigorous synthesis of published articles and expert recommendations.

We formulated standards for reporting qualitative research by using a rigorous and systematic approach in which we reviewed previously proposed recommendations by experts in qualitative methods. Our research team consisted of two PhD researchers and one physician with formal training and experience in qualitative methods, and two physicians with experience, but no formal training, in qualitative methods.

We first identified previously proposed recommendations by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google using combinations of terms such as “qualitative methods,” “qualitative research,” “qualitative guidelines,” “qualitative standards,” and “critical appraisal” and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources, reviewing the Equator Network, 22 and contacting experts. We conducted our first search in January 2007 and our last search in July 2013. Most recommendations were published in peer-reviewed journals, but some were available only on the Internet, and one was an interim draft from a national organization. We report the full set of the 40 sources reviewed in Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 .

Two of us (B.O., I.H.) reviewed an initial sample of sources to generate a comprehensive list of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research (Draft A). All of us then worked in pairs to review all sources and code the presence or absence of each item in a given source. From Draft A, we then distilled a shorter list (Draft B) by identifying core concepts and combining related items, taking into account the number of times each item appeared in these sources. We then compared the items in Draft B with material in the original sources to check for missing concepts, modify accordingly, and add explanatory definitions to create a prefinal list of items (Draft C).

We circulated Draft C to five experienced qualitative researchers (see the acknowledgments) for review. We asked them to note any omitted or redundant items and to suggest improvements to the wording to enhance clarity and relevance across a broad spectrum of qualitative inquiry. In response to their reviews, we consolidated some items and made minor revisions to the wording of labels and definitions to create the final set of reporting standards—the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)—summarized in Table 1 .

To explicate how the final set of standards reflect the material in the original sources, two of us (B.O., D.A.C.) selected by consensus the 25 most complete sources of recommendations and identified which standards reflected the concepts found in each original source (see Table 2 ).

The SRQR is a list of 21 items that we consider essential for complete, transparent reporting of qualitative research (see Table 1 ). As explained above, we developed these items through a rigorous synthesis of prior recommendations and concepts from published sources (see Table 2 ; see also Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 ) and expert review. These 21 items provide a framework and recommendations for reporting qualitative studies. Given the wide range of qualitative approaches and methodologies, we attempted to select items with broad relevance.

The SRQR includes the article’s title and abstract (items 1 and 2); problem formulation and research question (items 3 and 4); research design and methods of data collection and analysis (items 5 through 15); results, interpretation, discussion, and integration (items 16 through 19); and other information (items 20 and 21). Supplemental Digital Appendix 2, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 , contains a detailed explanation of each item, along with examples from recently published qualitative studies. Below, we briefly describe the standards, with a particular focus on those unique to qualitative research.

Titles, abstracts, and introductory material. Reporting standards for titles, abstracts, and introductory material (problem formulation, research question) in qualitative research are very similar to those for quantitative research, except that the results reported in the abstract are narrative rather than numerical, and authors rarely present a specific hypothesis. 29 , 30

Research design and methods. Reporting on research design and methods of data collection and analysis highlights several distinctive features of qualitative research. Many of the criteria we reviewed focus not only on identifying and describing all aspects of the methods (e.g., approach, researcher characteristics and role, sampling strategy, context, data collection and analysis) but also on justifying each choice. 13 , 14 This ensures that authors make their assumptions and decisions transparent to readers. This standard is less commonly expected in quantitative research, perhaps because most quantitative researchers share positivist assumptions and generally agree about standards for rigor of various study designs and sampling techniques. 14 Just as quantitative reporting standards encourage authors to describe how they implemented methods such as randomization and measurement validity, several qualitative reporting criteria recommend that authors describe how they implemented a presumably familiar technique in their study rather than simply mentioning the technique. 10 , 14 , 32 For example, authors often state that data collection occurred until saturation, with no mention of how they defined and recognized saturation. Similarly, authors often mention an “iterative process,” with minimal description of the nature of the iterations. The SRQR emphasizes the importance of explaining and elaborating on these important processes. Nearly all of the original sources recommended describing the characteristics and role of the researcher (i.e., reflexivity). Members of the research team often form relationships with participants, and analytic processes are highly interpretive in most qualitative research. Therefore, reviewers and readers must understand how these relationships and the researchers’ perspectives and assumptions influenced data collection and interpretation. 15 , 23 , 26 , 34

Results. Reporting of qualitative research results should identify the main analytic findings. Often, these findings involve interpretation and contextualization, which represent a departure from the tradition in quantitative studies of objectively reporting results. The presentation of results often varies with the specific qualitative approach and methodology; thus, rigid rules for reporting qualitative findings are inappropriate. However, authors should provide evidence (e.g., examples, quotes, or text excerpts) to substantiate the main analytic findings. 20 , 29

Discussion. The discussion of qualitative results will generally include connections to existing literature and/or theoretical or conceptual frameworks, the scope and boundaries of the results (transferability), and study limitations. 10–12 , 28 In some qualitative traditions, the results and discussion may not have distinct boundaries; we recommend that authors include the substance of each item regardless of the section in which it appears.

The purpose of the SRQR is to improve the quality of reporting of qualitative research studies. We hope that these 21 recommended reporting standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings. As with other reporting guidelines, 35–37 we anticipate that the SRQR will evolve as it is applied and evaluated in practice. We welcome suggestions for refinement.

Qualitative studies explore “how?” and “why?” questions related to social or human problems or phenomena. 10 , 38 Purposes of qualitative studies include understanding meaning from participants’ perspectives (How do they interpret or make sense of an event, situation, or action?); understanding the nature and influence of the context surrounding events or actions; generating theories about new or poorly understood events, situations, or actions; and understanding the processes that led to a desired (or undesired) outcome. 38 Many different approaches (e.g., ethnography, phenomenology, discourse analysis, case study, grounded theory) and methodologies (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observation, analysis of documents) may be used in qualitative research, each with its own assumptions and traditions. 1 , 2 A strength of many qualitative approaches and methodologies is the opportunity for flexibility and adaptability throughout the data collection and analysis process. We endeavored to maintain that flexibility by intentionally defining items to avoid favoring one approach or method over others. As such, we trust that the SRQR will support all approaches and methods of qualitative research by making reports more explicit and transparent, while still allowing investigators the flexibility to use the study design and reporting format most appropriate to their study. It may be helpful, in the future, to develop approach-specific extensions of the SRQR, as has been done for guidelines in quantitative research (e.g., the CONSORT extensions). 37

Limitations, strengths, and boundaries

We deliberately avoided recommendations that define methodological rigor, and therefore it would be inappropriate to use the SRQR to judge the quality of research methods and findings. Many of the original sources from which we derived the SRQR were intended as criteria for methodological rigor or critical appraisal rather than reporting; for these, we inferred the information that would be needed to evaluate the criterion. Occasionally, we found conflicting recommendations in the literature (e.g., recommending specific techniques such as multiple coders or member checking to demonstrate trustworthiness); we resolved these conflicting recommendations through selection of the most frequent recommendations and by consensus among ourselves.

Some qualitative researchers have described the limitations of checklists as a means to improve methodological rigor. 13 We nonetheless believe that a checklist for reporting standards will help to enhance the transparency of qualitative research studies and thereby advance the field. 29 , 39

Strengths of this work include the grounding in previously published criteria, the diversity of experience and perspectives among us, and critical review by experts in three countries.

Implications and application

Similar to other reporting guidelines, 35–37 the SRQR may be viewed as a starting point for defining reporting standards in qualitative research. Although our personal experience lies in health professions education, the SRQR is based on sources originating in diverse health care and non-health-care fields. We intentionally crafted the SRQR to include various paradigms, approaches, and methodologies used in qualitative research. The elaborations offered in Supplemental Digital Appendix 2 (see https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 ) should provide sufficient description and examples to enable both novice and experienced researchers to use these standards. Thus, the SRQR should apply broadly across disciplines, methodologies, topics, study participants, and users.

The SRQR items reflect information essential for inclusion in a qualitative research report, but should not be viewed as prescribing a rigid format or standardized content. Individual study needs, author preferences, and journal requirements may necessitate a different sequence or organization than that shown in Table 1 . Journal word restrictions may prevent a full exposition of each item, and the relative importance of a given item will vary by study. Thus, although all 21 standards would ideally be reflected in any given report, authors should prioritize attention to those items that are most relevant to the given study, findings, context, and readership.

Application of the SRQR need not be limited to the writing phase of a given study. These standards can assist researchers in planning qualitative studies and in the careful documentation of processes and decisions made throughout the study. By considering these recommendations early on, researchers may be more likely to identify the paradigm and approach most appropriate to their research, consider and use strategies for ensuring trustworthiness, and keep track of procedures and decisions.

Journal editors can facilitate the review process by providing the SRQR to reviewers and applying its standards, thus establishing more explicit expectations for qualitative studies. Although the recommendations do not address or advocate specific approaches, methods, or quality standards, they do help reviewers identify information that is missing from manuscripts.

As authors and editors apply the SRQR, readers will have more complete information about a given study, thus facilitating judgments about the trustworthiness, relevance, and transferability of findings to their own context and/or to related literature. Complete reporting will also facilitate meaningful synthesis of qualitative results across studies. 40 We anticipate that such transparency will, over time, help to identify previously unappreciated gaps in the rigor and relevance of research findings. Investigators, editors, and educators can then work to remedy these deficiencies and, thereby, enhance the overall quality of qualitative research.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Margaret Bearman, PhD, Calvin Chou, MD, PhD, Karen Hauer, MD, Ayelet Kuper, MD, DPhil, Arianne Teherani, PhD, and participants in the UCSF weekly educational scholarship works-in-progress group (ESCape) for critically reviewing the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.

References Cited Only in Table 2

Supplemental digital content.

ACADMED_89_9_2014_05_22_OBRIEN_1301196_SDC1.pdf; [PDF] (385 KB)
+ Favorites
View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework, the positivism paradigm of research, common qualitative methodologies and research designs in health professions..., summary of instructions for authors, the problem and power of professionalism: a critical analysis of medical....

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland, Starting Immediately

Due to the downward trend in respiratory viruses in Maryland, masking is no longer required but remains strongly recommended in Johns Hopkins Medicine clinical locations in Maryland. Read more .

Vaccines
Masking Guidelines
Visitor Guidelines

Institute for Excellence in Education

Committed to Leading the Way in Medical and Biomedical Education

The mission of the Institute for Excellence in Education (IEE) is to promote, value and advance the educational mission of the School of Medicine while enhancing the school's leadership role in medical and biomedical education. To guide this mission, IEE has identified four guiding principles or "pillars" into which all of our decisions, work and programs are aligned.

For the 2024-2025 academic year, the IEE is highlighting the theme “The Value of Education: Investing in the Future.”

About the IEE

Educator resources, partner with us, join our mailing list, explore the pillars of our mission.

Improving Teaching

Inspiring and Supporting Research, Scholarship and Innovation in Education

Valuing and Recognizing Teachers and Educators

Fostering a Community of Educators

IEE Calls to Action

Funding opportunities.

Apply for grant funding through our small grants program , the Faculty Education Scholars Program , or submit a proposal to be considered for IEE Education Shark Tank.

Explore programs

Nominations

The IEE Outstanding Educator Awards are designed to recognize and celebrate our outstanding educators and acknowledge great achievements in education. The awards are open to any full- or part-time faculty members of the School of Medicine, and are peer nominated, reviewed and selected.

Make a nomination

Present Your Scholarship

Submit a scholarship or innovation abstract to be considered for the upcoming IEE Education Conference and Celebration. We invite you to submit abstracts in all areas of medical, biomedical, nursing or public health education.

Celebrating 10 Years of the IEE

The Institute for Excellence in Education of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine celebrated its 10th anniversary!

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Excellence in Education Celebrates 10 Years

Educator Domains, Competencies and Metrics

The Educator Domains, Competencies and Metrics were developed by a diverse committee of Hopkins educator faculty, leaders and educators. We hope these tools will be useful to faculty as they plan their educational careers; mentors, coaches and advisors as they help guide faculty; leadership as they plan and build programs; and those evaluating educators to give recognition for the work done.

It is also our hope that the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Foundational Principles for Teaching and Education will be inspiring to Johns Hopkins leaders, educators and learners.

A chart illustrating the School of Medicine's domains of educational work.

Foundations of Educational Scholarship Course

Foundations of teaching and learning course, foundations of educational leadership, foundations of curriculum development concepts, foundations of assessment and evaluation, foundations of mentoring, coaching and advising, upcoming events, 25 jul 2024.

Summer Teaching Camp 9:00 PM - 5:00 PM Armstrong Medical Education Building REGISTRATION OPEN

16 OCTOBER 2024

Foundations of Educational Leadership Course

17 JANUARY 2024

Winter Teaching Camp 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM VIRTUAL Registration opening soon

Our Community of Educators

Criteria for Quality in Quantitative and Qualitative Writing Research

Good writing research is characterized by evidence that is trustworthy, applicable to multiple practical settings, consistent and transparent about its position—regardless of whether a qualitative or a quantitative approach is used. Qualitative and quantitative writing research both require standards for good evidence, even though the articulation of criteria in the two approaches is different. Below, we provide a description of high quality writing research practices. While individual descriptors might not apply equally to all approaches, editors and authors can refer to these guidelines in assessing the quality of chapters.

Techniques for Quality in Quantitative Writing Research	Quality Criteria in Quantitative Writing Research	Quality Principles	Quality Criteria in Qualitative Writing Research	Techniques for Quality in Qualitative Writing Research
The extent to which observed effects can be attributed to the independent variable		Truth Value of Evidence	The extent to which study findings are trustworthy and believable to others ), methods ( ), researchers ( ) and theories ( ). ).
The extent to which results can be generalized from the research sample to the population .		Applicability of Evidence	The extent to which findings can be transferred or applied in different settings e.g. ).
The extent to which results are consistent if the study would be replicated		Consistency of Evidence	The extent to which findings are consistent in relation to the contexts in which they were generated ).
The extent to which personal biases are removed and value-free information is gathered		Ethical Treatment of Evidence	The extent to which findings are based on the study's participants and settings and not researchers' biases

Please also consult the series statement of ethical practices , its language policy , and the WAC Clearinghouse peer review process .

Suggestions for further reading:

Levitt, H. M. (2019). Reporting qualitative research in psychology . APA.
Cooper, H. (2019). Reporting quantitative research in psychology . APA.

This overview of quality criteria for the International Exchanges on the Study of Writing book series uses a similar layout and is informed by the article, "AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research" by Janneke M. Frambach, Cees P. M. van der Vleuten, and Steven J.Durning, which was published in Academic Medicine (volume 88, issue 4, page 552) in April 2013. With the first author’s permission, we have adapted the table for research in writing studies. We also acknowledge revision comments for this document offered by Rebecca Babcock ( https://www.utpb.edu/directory/faculty -staff/babcock_r) and Ruth Villalón ( https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1600-8026 ).

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Geoheritage of the iconic en280 leba road (huila plateau, southwestern angola): inventory, geological characterization and quantitative assessment for outdoor educational activities.

1. Introduction

2. area framework, 2.1. location and accessibility, 2.2. geological and geomorphological settings.

Click here to enlarge figure

3. Methodology

Geological Value (GlV): this encompasses secondary indicators such as Scientific Value (ScV) and Additional Values (AdV); GlV = ScV + AdV.
Management Value (MnV): this integrates secondary indicators including Use Value (UsV) and Protection Value (PrV); MnV = UsV + PrV.

4. The EN280 Leba Road and the Inventory of Its Outcrops

4.1. identification and type of the geosites, 4.2. characterization and qualitative assessment of geosites, 4.2.1. stop 1 (gl1)—traditional mining clay pit in the humpata plateau, 4.2.2. stop 2 (gl2)—old lime oven of leba, 4.2.3. stop 3 (gl3)—view point of the serra da leba, 4.2.4. stop 4 (gl4)—vertical layers at the beginning of the descent, 4.2.5. stop 5 (gl5)—slope of the fault propagation fold, 4.2.6. stop 6 (gl6)—reverse fault in granitoid rocks, 4.2.7. stop 7 (gl7)—dolerite curve, 4.2.8. stop 8 (gl8)—ductile simple shear zone, 5. quantification of the geosites, 5.1. numerical assessment, 5.1.1. determination of the scientific value (scv), 5.1.2. determination of additional value (adv), 5.1.3. determination of use value (usv), 5.1.4. determination of protection value (prv), 5.1.5. determination of the total value (ttv), 5.2. geosite ranking, 5.3. the meaning of the numerical assessment, 6. outdoor didactic activities for a field guide.

Understanding and identifying the general characteristics of the three major rock groups;
Familiarity with the origins of the three major rock groups;
Recognition of the effects of Earth internal processes on rock deformation;
Awareness of the impact of Earth external processes on rock weathering and erosion;
Ability to read and interpret maps and scales;
Understanding of the regional geology of the Serra da Leba;
Acknowledgment of humanity’s role in exploiting and managing georesources and its impact on environmental changes;
Familiarity with conduct expectations in an outdoor environment.
Recognition of the importance of conserving both the natural and built heritage.

7. Discussion

7.1. the quantification of the proposed geosites: geoheritage and educational potential, 7.2. the geoeducational aspects of the proposed traverse.

(b) Geological time and age of the Earth
(c) Rock deformation and tectonics
(d) Anthropic changes and the sustainable exploitation of georesources

8. Conclusions

Author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Santos, R.V. Abordagens do processo de ensino e aprendizagem. Integração 2003 , 40 , 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
Kali, Y.; Orion, N.; Eylon, B. The effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the earth’s crust as a cyclic system. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003 , 40 , 545–565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Callapez, P.M.; Audije-Gil, J.; Barroso-Barcenilla, F.; Berrocal-Casero, M.; Brandão, J.M.; Faustino, P.; Ozkaya de Juanas, S.A.; Pimentel, R.; Rodríguez, E.; Santos, V.; et al. Exploring fieldwork education through a context of Iberian cooperation: Activities with sedimentary rocks and fossils in the Cenomanian of Figueira da Foz (Portugal) and Tamajón (Spain). In Libro de Resúmenes del XX Simposio de la Enseñanza de la Geología ; Duque-Mecías, J., Bernal, P.A., Eds.; Agència Menorca Reserva de Biosfera Consell Insular de Menorca: Maó, Spain, 2018; pp. 253–262. [ Google Scholar ]
Orion, N. A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. Sch. Sci. Math. 1993 , 93 , 325–331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pedrinaci, E.; Sequeiros, L.; García, E. El trabajo de campo y el aprendizaje de la Geología. Alambique. Didáctica de las Cienc. Exp. 1994 , 2 , 37–45. [ Google Scholar ]
Bonito, J.; Sousa, M.B. Actividades práticas de campo em Geociências: Uma proposta alternativa. In Didácticas: Metodologias da Educação. Braga: Departamento de Metodologias da Educação ; Leite, L., Duarte, M.C., Castro, R.V., Silva, J., Mouro, A.P., Precioso, J., Eds.; Universidade do Minho: Braga, Portugal, 1997; pp. 75–91. [ Google Scholar ]
Garcia de La Torre, E. Metodología y secuenciación de las actividades didácticas de Geología de Campo. Enseñanza de las Cienc. de la Tierra 1994 , 2 , 340–353. [ Google Scholar ]
Orion, N. Earth Science education: From theory to practice, implementation of new teaching strategies in different learning environments. In Geociências nos Currículos dos Ensinos Básico e Secundário ; Marques, L., Praia, J., Eds.; Universidade de Aveiro: Aveiro, Portugal, 2001; pp. 93–114. [ Google Scholar ]
Orion, N. A holistic approach for science education for all. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2007 , 3 , 99–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Orion, N.; Hofstein, A. The measurement of students’ attitudes towards scientific field trips. Sci. Educ. 1991 , 75 , 513–523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Orion, N.; Hofstein, A. Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994 , 31 , 1097–1119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Prokop, P.; Tuncer, G.; Kvasničák, R. Short-term effects of field programme on students’ knowledge and attitude toward biology: A Slovak experience. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007 , 16 , 247–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dodick, J.; Orion, N. Building an understanding of geological time: A cognitive synthesis of the “macro” and “micro” scales of time. In Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth ; Manduca, C.A., Mogk, D.W., Eds.; Geological Society of America Special Papers; GeoScienceWorld Books: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006; Volume 413, pp. 77–93. [ Google Scholar ]
Campiani, M.; Carneiro, C. The didactic role played by geological excursions. In International Conference on Geoscience Education training Southampton University, Geoscience Education and Training in Schools and Universities, for Industry and Public Awareness ; Stow, D.A.V., Mccall, G.J.H., Eds.; Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 233–240. [ Google Scholar ]
Mondlane, S.; Mapani, B. The role of field work in geoscience education: Trends and constrains. J. Teach. Earth Sci. 2002 , 27 , 129–131. [ Google Scholar ]
Ozkaya de Juanas, S.; Barroso-Barcenilla, F.; Callapez, P.M. Didactic and outreach possibilities of the Cretaceous palaeontological site Figueira da Foz (Portugal). Comun. Geológicas 2021 , 128 , 125–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Neto, K.; Henriques, M.H. Geoconservation in Africa: State of the art and future challenges. Gondwana Res. 2022 , 110 , 107–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jacobs, L.L.; Schröder, S.; de Sousa, N.; Dixon, R.; Fiordalisi, E.; Marechal, A.; Mateus, O.; Nsungani, P.C.; Polcyn, M.J.; Pereira, G.D.C.R.; et al. The Atlantic jigsaw puzzle and the geoheritage of Angola. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2024 , 543 , SP543-2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tormey, D. New approaches to communication and education through geoheritage. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2019 , 7 , 192–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lopes, B.S.; Callapez, P.M.; Gomes, C.R. A importância do legado histórico-científico da época colonial na formação de quadros dos PALOP em Ciências Naturais. In Proceedings Book of the II COOPEDU—Cooperation and Education. Africa and the World ; Barreto, M.A., Costa, A.B., Eds.; Centro de Estudos Africanos: Lisbon, Portugal, 2012; Part II, Chapter 1; pp. 234–247. [ Google Scholar ]
Lopes, B.S. What do we learn when we teach abroad? Reflections about International Cooperation with developing countries. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 116 , 3930–3934. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lopes, F.C.; Ramos, A.; Romualdo, C.; Ussombo, C. The geoheritage of Lubango-Tundavala road traverse in the Serra da Leba (SW Angola): Outcrops characterization and numerical assessment for outdoor educational activities and geoconservation purpose. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2019 , 157 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Henriques, M.H.; Tavares, A.O.; Bala, A.L.M. The Geological Heritage of Tundavala (Angola): An integrated approach to its characterization. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2013 , 88 , 62–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Henriques, M.H.; Andrade, A.I.A.S.S.; Lopes, F.C. The Earth Sciences among the Community of Portuguese-Speaking countries and the future of Gondwana. Episodes 2013 , 36 , 255–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Henriques, M.H.; Neto, K. Geoheritage at the Equator: Selected Geosites of São Tomé Island (Cameron Line, Central Africa). Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 648–667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Henriques, M.H.; Neto, K. Geoheritage at the Equator: Revisiting Selected Geosites of São Tomé Island (Cameron Line, Central Africa). In Prime Archives in Sustainability ; Henriques, M.H., Ed.; Vide Leaf: Hyderabad, India, 2019; pp. 1–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tavares, A.O.; Henriques, M.H.; Domingos, A.; Bala, A. Community Involvement in Geoconservation: A Conceptual Approach Based on the Geoheritage of South Angola. Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 4893–4918. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Martínez-Frías, J.; Mogessie, A. The need for a geoscience education roadmap for Africa. Episodes 2012 , 35 , 489–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Lopes, F.C.; Pereira, A.J.; Mantas, V.M.; Mpengo, H.K. Morphostructural characterization of the western edge of the Huila Plateau (SW Angola), based on remote sensing techniques. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2016 , 117 , 114–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Delor, C.; Theveniaut, H.; Cage, M.; Pato, D.; Lafon, J.-M.; Bialkowski, A.; Rooig, J.-Y.; Neto, A.; Cavongo, M.; Sergeev, S. New insights into the Precambrian geology of Angola: Basis for an updated lithochronological framework at 1:2,000,000 scale. In Proceedings of the 22nd Colloquium of African Geology, Hammamet, Tunisia, 4 November 2008; Inoubli, M.H., Tlig, S., Mansouri, A., Eds.; pp. 52–53. [ Google Scholar ]
Pedreira, A.J.; Waele, B. Contemporaneous Evolution of the Palaeoproterozoic–Mesoproterozoic Sedimentary Basins of the São Francisco–Congo Craton. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2008 , 294 , 33–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Batumike, J.M.; Griffin, W.L.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Belousova, E.A.; Pawlitschek, M. Crustal evolution in the central Congo-Kasai Craton, Luebo, D.R. Congo: Insights from zircon U–Pb ages, Hf-isotope and trace-element data. Precambrian Res. 2009 , 170 , 107–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
McCourt, S.; Armstrong, R.A.; Jelsma, H.; Mapeo, R.B.M. New U-Pb SHRIMP ages from the Lubango region, SW Angola: Insights into the Palaeoproterozoic evolution of the Angolan Shield, southern Congo Craton, Africa. J. Geol. Soc. 2013 , 170 , 353–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Carvalho, H. Notice explicative préliminaire sur la géologie d’Angola. Inst. Investig. Trop. Ser. Geol. 1983 , 6 , 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
Carvalho, H.; Alves, P. The precambrian of SW Angola and NW Namibia. In Comunicações. Instituto de Investigação Científica Tropical, Série Ciências da Terra ; Instituto de Investigação Científica Tropical: Lisbon, Portugal, 1993; Volume 4, pp. 1–38. [ Google Scholar ]
Ferreira da Silva, A. A geologia da República de Angola desde o Paleoarcaico ao Paleozóico Inferior. Bol. de Minas 2009 , 44 , 99–162. [ Google Scholar ]
Torquato, J.; Silva, A.; Cordani, U.; Kawashita, K. Evolução Geológica do Cinturão Móvel do Quipungo no Ocidente de Angola. Acad. Bras. Ciências 1979 , 51 , 133–144. [ Google Scholar ]
Carvalho, H. Estratigrafia do Precâmbrico de Angola. Garcia de Orta, Série Geológica 1984 , 7 , 1–66. [ Google Scholar ]
Carvalho, H.; Tassinari, C.; Alves, P.; Guimaraes, F.; Simoes, M. Geochronological review of the Precambrian in western Angola: Links with Brazil. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2000 , 31 , 383–402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Correia, H. Sobre a existência de rochas vulcanoclásticas na Formação da Chela (Região do Planalto da Humpata). In Ciências Geológicas, Cursos de Ciências ; Universidade de Luanda: Luanda, Angola, 1973; Volume 1, pp. 27–32. [ Google Scholar ]
Correia, H. O grupo Chela e a Formação da Leba como novas unidades litoestratigráficas resultantes da redefinição da Formação da Chela na região do planalto da Humpata (SW de Angola). Bol. Soc. Geol. Portugal 1976 , 20 , 65–130. [ Google Scholar ]
Pereira, E.; Tassinari, C.C.G.; Rodrigues, J.F.; Van-Dúnem, M.V. New data on the deposition age of the volcano-sedimentary Chela Group and its Eburnean basement: Implications to post- Eburnean crustal evolution of the SW of Angola. Comun. Geológicas 2011 , 98 , 29–40. [ Google Scholar ]
Pereira, E.; Rodrigues, J.; Van Dúnem, M.V. Carta Geológica de Angola, à escala 1:250 000: Folha Sul D-33/T (Chibia) ; Publicação do Instituto Geológico de Angola: Kilamba, Angola, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Duarte, L.V.; Barata, J.; Oliveira, C.L. Aspetos microfaciológicos da Formação da Leba, Proterozoico (Sudoeste de Angola). Comun. Geológicas 2024 , in press . [ Google Scholar ]
Dinis, P.; Mantas, V.; Santarém Andrade, P.; Tonecas, J.; Kapula, E.; Pereira, A.; Carvalho, F. Contribution of TRMM rainfall data to the study of natural systems and risk assessment. Cases of application in SW Angola. Estud. Quatern./Quat. Stud. 2013 , 9 , 33–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Andrade, P.S.; Gonçalves, G.N.; Quinta-Ferreira, M. Rock Fall Analysis on the City of Lubango, SW Angola. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory. Landslide Processes ; Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Crosta, G., Corominas, J., Azzam, R., Wasowski, J., Sciarra, N., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 2027–2030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Andrade, P.S.; André, I.; Callapez, P.M. Stability Assessment of Road Slopes, SW Angola. In Proceedings of the 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017, Varna, Bulgaria, 29 June–5 July 2017; Hydrogeology, Engineering Geology and Geotechnics. pp. 785–792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gray, J.M. Geodiversity: Developing the paradigma. Proceeding Geol. Assoc. 2008 , 11 , 287–298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Elízaga, E.; Gallego, E.; García-Cortés, A. Inventaire national des sites d’intérêt géologique en Espagne: Méthodologie et déroulement. Mém.Soc. Géol. Fr. 1994 , 165 , 103–109. [ Google Scholar ]
Duarte, L.V. The geological heritage of the Lower Jurassic of Central Portugal: Selected sites, inventory and main scientific arguments. Riv. Ital. Paleontol. Stratigr. 2004 , 110 , 381–388. [ Google Scholar ]
Brilha, J. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage 2016 , 8 , 119–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Brilha, J. Geoheritage: Inventories and Evaluation. In Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management ; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Chapter 4; pp. 69–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.; Caetano Alves, M.I. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv. 2007 , 62 , 159–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pereira, P.; Pereira, D. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment Indications méthodologiques pour l’évaluation des géomorphosites. Géomorph. Relief Process. Environ. 2010 , 2 , 215–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dourado, L.; Leite, L. Field activities, science education and problem-solving. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013 , 106 , 1232–1241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Amador, F. Programa de Biologia e Geologia—10°. Curso Científico-Humanístico de Ciências e Tecnologias ; Revoked by Order 6605–A/2021, July 6; Ministério da Educação, Departamento do Ensino Secundário: Lisbon, Portugal, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Amador, F. Programa de Biologia e Geologia—11°. Curso Científico-Humanístico de Ciências e Tecnologias ; Revoked by Order 6605–A/2021, July 6; Ministério da Educação, Departamento do Ensino Secundário: Lisbon, Portugal, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Camarate França, J. Notas e comunicações sobre uma jazida de fácies mesolítica do sul de Angola. In Estudos Coloniais: Ver. Esc. Sup. Colonial 1952 , 3 , 303–310. [ Google Scholar ]
Ervedosa, C. Arqueologia Angolana ; Edições 70: Lisboa, Portugal, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
Matos, D.; Pereira, T. Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages from Leba Cave (Southwest Angola). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 32 , 102413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Duarte, L.V.; Callapez, P.M.; Kalukembe, A.; Gonçalves, A.; Segundo, J.C.; Lapão, L.; Prata, M.E.; Bandeira, M.; Cristino, A.T. Do Proterozoico da Serra da Leba (Planalto da Humpata) ao Cretácico da Bacia de Benguela (Angola). A geologia de lugares com elevado valor paisagístico. Comun. Geológicas 2014 , 101 , 1255–1259. [ Google Scholar ]
Kalukembe, A.; Duarte, L.V.; Callapez, P.; Dinis, P. The contribution of Neoproterozoic stromatolite buildups for the carbonate framework and karstic morphology of the Humpata plateau (SW Angola). In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Geomorphology, Coimbra, Portugal, 12–16 September 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Marques, L.; Praia, J.; Andrade, A.S. Actividades exteriores à sala de aula em ambientes formais de ensino das ciências: Sua relevância. In A Terra. Conflitos e ordem. Livro de Homenagem ao Professor Ferreira Soares ; Callapez, P., Rocha, R., Marques, J., Cunha, L., Dinis, P., Eds.; Museu Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2008; pp. 325–342. [ Google Scholar ]
Brilha, J. Património geológico e geoconservação. In A Conservação da Natureza na Sua Vertente Geológica ; Editora Palimage: Viseu, Portugal, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Brilha, J. Geoconservation, concept of. In Encyclopedia of Mineral and Energy Policy ; Tiess, G., Majumder, T., Cameron, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
Panizza, M. Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2001 , 46 , 4–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Reynard, E. Geomorphosites et paysages. Géomorph. Relief Process. Environ. 2005 , 3 , 181–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Reynard, E. The assessment of geomorphosites. In Geomorphosites ; Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., Eds.; Verlag Friedrich Pfeil: Munchen, Germany, 2009; pp. 63–72. [ Google Scholar ]
Reynard, E.; Fontana, G.; Kozlik, L.; Scapozza, C. A method for assessing ‘scientific’ and ‘additional values’ of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 2007 , 62 , 148–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Stokes, A.; Boyle, A.P. The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning. In Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modem Approaches ; WhiLmcycr, S., Mogk, D.W., Pyle, E., Eds.; Geological Society of America Special Paper 461; The Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 2009; pp. 291–311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hoyer, L.; Hastie, W.W. Geoscience undergraduate students’ perceptions of how field work and practical skills influence their conceptual understanding and subject interest. J. Geosci. Educ. 2023 , 71 , 158–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pinho, A.B.; Gonçalves, A.O.; Morais, E.A.; Duarte, I.M.R.; Lopes, L. From the Humpata Plateau to the Namibe Desert, SW Angola. In 35th International Geological Post-Congress Field Trip in Angola (EXSA-POST 6) Guidebook ; Geological Society of South Africa : Johannesburg, South Africa, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
Dowling, R.K. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 2011 , 3 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hose, T.A. 3G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage 2012 , 4 , 7–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ruban, D.A. Geotourism—A geographical review of the literature. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015 , 15 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Suzuki, D.A.; Takagi, H. Evaluation of geosite for sustainable planning and managementin geotourism. Geoheritage 2017 , 10 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Muto, F.; Biondino, D.; Crisci, G.M.; Marabini, S.; Procopio, F.; Scarciglia, F.; Vai, G.B. Pages of Earth History in an Exceptional Uniqueness: The Geo-Heritage of the Sila National Park and its Spheroidal Boulders Geosite (Northern Calabria, Italy). Geohearitage 2024 , 16 , 2–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sen, S.; Abouelresh, M.O.; Al-Musabeh, A.H.; Al-Ismail, F.S. Potential geoheritage resources in Saudi Arabia for geotourism development: In the context of IUCN theme. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2014 , 12 , 98–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Scientific Values		ScV
Rareness in relation to the area		Ra
It is not one of the most important 5		0
It is not one of the most important 3		0.25
One of the most important 3		0.50
The most important		0.75
Single occurrence		1.00
Integrity/Intactness		In
Highly damaged as a result of human activities		0
Damaged as a result of natural processes		0.25
Damaged but preserving essential geological features		0.50
Slightly damaged but still maintaining the essential geological features		0.75
No visible damage		1.00
Representativeness of geological processes and pedagogical interest		Rp
Low representativeness and without pedagogical interest		0
With some representativeness but with low pedagogical interest		0.33
Good example of processes but hard to explain to non-experts		0.67
Good example of processes and/or good pedagogical resource		1.00
Number of interesting geomorphological features (diversity)		Dv
1		0
2		0.33
3		0.67
More than 3		1.00
Other geological features with heritage value		Ge
Absence of other geological features		0
Other geological features but without relation to geomorphology		0.17
Other geological features with relation to geomorphology		0.33
Occurrence of other geosite(s)		0.50
Scientific knowledge of geomorphological issues		Kn
None		0
Medium: presentations, national papers		0.25
High: international papers, thesis		0.50
Rareness at national level		Rn
Rn > 5 occurrences		0
3 > Rn < 5 occurrences		0.17
2 occurrences		0.33
Single occurrence		0.50
Rareness in relation to the area		Ra
It is not one of the most important 5		0
It is not one of the most important 3		0.25
One of the most important 3		0.50
The most important		0.75
Single occurrence		1.00
Integrity/Intactness		In
Highly damaged as a result of anthropic activities		0
Damaged as a result of natural processes		0.25
Damaged but preserving essential geomorphological features		0.50
Slightly damaged but still maintaining the essential geomorphological features		0.75
No visible damage		1.00
Additional Values		AdV
Cultural Value		Cu
Without cultural features or with cultural features damaging the site		0
Cultural features with no connection to landforms		0.25
Relevant cultural features with no connection to landforms		0.50
Immaterial cultural features related to landforms		0.75
Material cultural features related to landforms		1.00
Relevant material cultural features related to landforms		1.25
Anthropic landform with high cultural relevance		1.50
Aesthetic Value		Aest
Low	Subjective analysis of: visual singularity of landforms; panoramic quality; objects and color diversity/combination; presence of water bodies and vegetation cover; degree of anthropic deterioration; proximity to the observed features.	0–0.5
Medium		0.5–1.0
High		1.0–1.5
Ecological Value		Ecol
Without relation to biological features		0
Occurrence of interesting flora and/or fauna		0.38
One of the best places to observe interesting flora and/or fauna		0.75
Geomorphological features are important for ecosystem(s)		1.12
Geomorphological features are crucial for the ecosystem(s)		1.50

Use Values	UsV
Accessibility	Ac
Very difficult, only possible with special equipment	0
Only by four-wheel-drive vehicle and >500 metres by footpath	0.21
By car and >500 metres by footpath	0.43
By car and <500 metres by footpath	0.64
By four-wheel-drive vehicle and <100 metres by footpath	0.86
By car and <50 metres by footpath	1.07
By bus on local roads and <50 metres by footpath	1.29
By bus on national roads and <50 metres by footpath	1.50
Visibility	Vi
Very difficult or not visible at all	0
Can only be viewed using special equipment (e.g., artificial light, ropes)	0.30
Limited by trees or lower vegetation	0.60
Good but the need to move around for a complete observation	0.90
Good for all relevant geological features	1.20
Excellent for all relevant geological features	1.50
Present use of the geological interest	Gu
Without promotion and not being used	0
Without promotion but being used	0.33
Promoted/used as landscape site	0.67
Promoted/used as geomorphosite or geosite	1.00
Present use of other natural and cultural interests	Ou
Without other interests, promotion, or use	0
With other interests but without promotion or use	0.33
With other interests and their promotion, but without other use	0.67
With other interests, with promotion and use	1.00
Legal protection and use limitations	Lp
With total protection and prohibitive use	0
With protection, with use restriction	0.33
Without protection and without use restriction	0.67
With protection but without use restriction or with very low use restriction	1.00
Equipment and support services	Eq
Hostelry and support services are >25 km away	0
Hostelry and support services are 10 < 25 km away	0.25
Hostelry and support services are 5 < 10 km away	0.50
Hostelry or support services are <5 km away	0.75
Hostelry and support services are <5 km away	1.00
Protection Values	PrV
Integrity/Intactness	In
Highly damaged as a result of anthropic activities	0
Damaged as a result of natural processes	0.25
Damaged but preserving essential geomorphological features	0.50
Slightly damaged but still maintaining the essential geomorphological features	0.75
No visible damage	1.00
Vulnerability of use as geosite	Vu
Very vulnerable, with possibility of total loss	0
Geomorphological features may be damaged	0.50
Other, non-geomorphological features may be damaged	1.00
Damage can occur only in/along the access structures	1.50
Not vulnerable	2.00

Stop (Geosite)	Name	Dimension	Thematic Category
Stop 1 (GL1)	Traditional mining clay pit in the Humpata Plateau	Local	Sedimentology (claystones); tectonics; weathering; georesources; geocultural
Stop 2 (GL2)	Old lime oven of Leba	Local	Sedimentology (cherty dolostones); paleontology (stromatolites); georesources; geocultural
Stop 3 (GL3)	Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba	Landscape	Volcano-sedimentary; granitoids; geoforms; tectonics; weathering; fluvial drainage; slope instability
Stop 4 (GL4)	Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent	Local	Volcano-sedimentary rocks; tectonics; slope instability
Stop 5 (GL5)	Slope of the fault propagation fold	Area	Volcano-sedimentary rocks; tectonics; weathering
Stop 6 (GL6)	Reverse fault in granitoid rocks	Local	Magmatism (granitoids); tectonics
Stop 7 (GL7)	Dolerite Curve	Local	Magmatism (granodiorite; dolerite); tectonics
Stop 8 (GL8)	Ductile simple shear zone	Local	Magmatism/metamorfism (granodiorite; mylonite); tectonics

Name	Scientific Value (ScV)
Name	Ra	In	Rp	Dv	Ge	Kn	Rn	Total
Traditional mining clay pit	1	0	1	0.33	0.33	0.3	0	2.96
Old lime oven of Leba	1	0.5	1	0.67	0.33	0.5	0.5	4.50
Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba	1	0.75	1	1	0.5	0.5	0.5	5.25
Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent	0.25	0.5	1	0.33	0.33	0.3	0.2	2.91
Slope of the fault propagation fold	1	0.5	1	0.67	0.5	0.3	0.5	4.47
Reverse fault in granitoid rocks	1	0.5	1	0.33	0.33	0.3	0.2	3.66
Dolerite Curve	1	0.5	1	0.67	0.5	0.3	0.2	4.17
Ductile simple shear zone	0.5	0.5	1	0.33	0.5	0.3	0.2	3.33

Name	Additional Value (AdV)
Name	Cultural	Aesthetic	Ecological	Total
Traditional mining clay pit	0	0.5	0	0.50
Old lime oven of Leba	1	1	0.38	2.38
Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba	1	1.5	0.38	2.88
Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent	0	0.5	0	0.50
Slope of the fault propagation fold	0	1	0.38	1.38
Reverse fault in granitoid rocks	0	1	0	1.00
Dolerite Curve	0	1	0.38	1.38
Ductile simple shear zone	0	1	0.38	1.38

Name	Use Value (UsV)
Name	Ac	Vi	Gu	Ou	Lp	Eq	Total
Traditional mining clay pit	0.64	1.5	0	0.33	0.67	0.5	3.64
Old lime oven of Leba	1.07	1.5	1	0.67	0.67	0.75	5.66
Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba	1.5	1.5	1	1	0.67	0.75	6.42
Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent	1.5	1.5	0	0.33	0.67	0.75	4.75
Slope of the fault propagation fold	1.5	1.5	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.75	5.42
Reverse fault in granitoid rocks	1.5	1.5	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.5	4.83
Dolerite Curve	1.5	1.5	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.5	5.17
Ductile simple shear zone	1.5	1.5	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.5	4.83

Name	Protection Value (PrV)
Name	In	Vu	Total
Traditional mining clay pit in the Humpata Plateau	0	0	0
Old lime oven of Leba	0.5	0.5	1
Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba	0.5	0.5	1
Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent	0.5	0.5	1
Slope of the fault propagation fold	0.5	0.5	1
Reverse fault in granitoid rocks	0.5	0	0.5
Dolerite Curve	0.5	0.5	1
Ductile simple shear zone	0.5	0.5	1

Name	ScV	AdV	GIV	UsV	PrV	MnV	TtV
Traditional mining clay pit (GL1)	2.96	0.5	3.46	3.64	0	3.64	7.10
Old lime oven of Leba (GL2)	4.50	2.38	6.88	5.66	1	6.66	13.54
Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba (GL3)	5.25	2.88	8.13	6.42	1	7.42	15.55
Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent (GL4)	2.91	0.5	3.41	4.75	1	5.75	9.16
Slope of the fault propagation fold (GL5)	4.47	1.38	5.85	5.42	1	6.42	12.27
Reverse fault in granitoid rocks (GL6)	3.66	1	4.66	4.83	0.5	5.33	9.99
Dolerite Curve (GL7)	4.17	1.38	5.55	5.17	1	6.17	11.72
Ductile simple shear zone (GL8)	3.33	1.38	4.71	4.83	1	5.83	10.54

Rank	Scientific Value (ScV)	Add. Value (AdV)	Geol. Value (GIV)	Use Value (UsV)	Protect. Value (PrV)	Manag. Value (MnV)	Total Value (TtV)	Final Ranking (Rk)
1st	GL3—5.25	GL3—2.88	GL3—8.13	GL3—6.42	GL2—1	GL3—7.42	GL3—15.55	GL3—8
2nd	GL2—4.5	GL2—2.38	GL2—6.88	GL2—5.66	GL3—1	GL2—6.66	GL2—13.54	GL2—13
3rd	GL5—4.47	GL5—1.38	GL5—5.85	GL5—5.42	GL4—1	GL5—6.42	GL5—12.27	GL5—22
4th	GL7—4.17	GL7—1.38	GL7—5.55	GL7—5.17	GL5—1	GL7—6.17	GL7—11.72	GL7—29
5th	GL6—3.66	GL8—1.38	GL8—4.71	GL6—4.83	GL7—1	GL8—5.83	GL8—10.54	GL8—38
6th	GL8—3.33	GL6—1	GL6—4.66	GL8—4.83	GL8—1	GL4—5.75	GL6—9.99	GL6—42
7th	GL1—2.96	GL1—0.5	GL1—3.46	GL4—4.75	GL6—0.5	GL6—5.33	GL4—9.16	GL4—47
8th	GL4—2.91	GL4—0.5	GL4—3.41	GL1—3.64	GL1—0	GL1—3.64	GL1—7.10	GL1—53

Stops	Tasks: to Observe/To Record/To Interpret
Stop 1 (GL1) 15°5′20.78″ S; 13°18′19.18″ E Traditional mining clay pit in the Humpata Plateau Time: 30 min.	To use maps for location on the trip traverse; Proper use of geologist’s hammer, magnifying glass, and compass. Photographic record and description of the characteristics observed in the outcrop and surrounding landscape. Registration and description in the field notebook.	Identify rock type and dominant structures
Stop 2 (GL2) 15°05′0.30″ S; 13°15′32.34″ E Old lime oven of Leba Time: 30 min.		Note: - Dominant weathering processes; - Stromatolite layers - Outcropping rock type; - Dominant rock structures;
Stop 3 (GL3) 15°04′36.45″ S; 13°14′5.16″ E Viewpoint of the Serra da Leba Time: 30 min.		Pay attention to: - The topographic step between the top and bottom of the plateau towards the west; - Differential weathering and erosion of the slopes and its relationship with the outcropping lithology; - The type of outcropping rock on the escarpment of the viewpoint; - The direction of the dominant joins systems on the escarpment of the viewpoint; - The dominant weathering process and the dominant erosive agent; - The influence of rock structure on weathering and instability situations of the viewpoint escarpment. - The dominant structures
Stop 4 (GL4) 15°04′18.34″ S; 13°14′14.83″ E Vertical layers at the beginning of the descent Time: 30 min.		Note: - The type of outcropping rock; - Dominant structures; - Slope instability.
Stop 5 (GL5) 15°04′22.32″ S; 13°14′10.74″ E Slope of the fault propagation fold Time: 30 min.		Note: - The type of outcropping rock; - The attitude of rock strata along the slope; - The dominant structures.
Stop 6 (GL6) 15°03′27.72″ S; 13°14′16.14″ E Reverse fault in granitoids rocks Time: 30 min.		Note: - The type and aspect of the outcropping rocks; - The dominant tectonic structures.
Stop 7 (GL7) 15°02′59.46″ S; 13°14′16.80″ E Dolerite Curve Time: 30 min.		Observe the kind of lithologies and dominant structures.
Stop 8 (GL8) 15°03′23.75″ S; 13°13′19.71″ E Ductile simple shear zone Time: 30 min.		Note the types of lithology, texture, and dominant structures.

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Lopes, F.C.; Ramos, A.M.; Callapez, P.M.; Andrade, P.S.; Duarte, L.V. Geoheritage of the Iconic EN280 Leba Road (Huila Plateau, Southwestern Angola): Inventory, Geological Characterization and Quantitative Assessment for Outdoor Educational Activities. Land 2024 , 13 , 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081293

Lopes FC, Ramos AM, Callapez PM, Andrade PS, Duarte LV. Geoheritage of the Iconic EN280 Leba Road (Huila Plateau, Southwestern Angola): Inventory, Geological Characterization and Quantitative Assessment for Outdoor Educational Activities. Land . 2024; 13(8):1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081293

Lopes, Fernando Carlos, Anabela Martins Ramos, Pedro Miguel Callapez, Pedro Santarém Andrade, and Luís Vítor Duarte. 2024. "Geoheritage of the Iconic EN280 Leba Road (Huila Plateau, Southwestern Angola): Inventory, Geological Characterization and Quantitative Assessment for Outdoor Educational Activities" Land 13, no. 8: 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081293

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

COMMENTS

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research
Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. Acad Med. 2013 Apr;88 (4):552. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f.
PDF AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Good research in medical education is characterized by evidence that is trustworthy, applicable to (multiple) practical settings, consistent, and neutral (unbiased)—regardless of whether a qualitative or a quantitative approach is used. However, while qualitative and quantitative research share similar standards for good evidence (quality criteria), the conception and operationalization of ...
Academic Medicine
Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research Frambach, Janneke M. MA, MSc, PhD; student; van der Vleuten, Cees P.M. PhD; Durning, Steven J. MD, PhD
AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Different quality criteria for qualitative and quantitative research share common principles: trustworthiness, applicability, consistency, and neutrality (Frambach et al., 2013). In qualitative ...
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research Janneke M Frambach, Cees P M van der Vleuten, Steven J Durning
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research
The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research and will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing ...
Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent
Abstract This article presents a model for quality in qualitative research that is uniquely expansive, yet flexible, in that it makes distinctions among qualitative research's means (methods and practices) and its ends. The article first provides a contextualization and rationale for the conceptualization. Then the author presents and explores eight key markers of quality in qualitative ...
AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research
AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research J.M. Frambach C.P.M. van der Vleuten S.J. Durning 1 January 2013
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then ...
Europe PMC
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. Frambach JM , van der Vleuten CP , Durning SJ Acad Med, 88 (4):552, 01 Apr 2013 Cited by: 84 articles | PMID: 23531762
Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research
Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative research and alternative terminology will be compared in relation to their application to qualitative research. In addition, some of the strategies adopted by qualitative researchers to enhance the credibility of their research are outlined.
Quality in qualitative research
In contrast, most quantitative research is concerned with measuring the magnitude, size or extent of a phenomenon. Data collection is by formal rules of procedure and verification, analysis is through the use of standardised statistical formats, and prediction and empirical generalisation are the desired outcomes.15,16The conventional methodological criteria of quantitative research ...
AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research
However, while qualitative and quantitative research share similar standards for good evidence (quality criteria), the conception and operationalization of these quality criteria differ between the two. Below, we provide an overview of these criteria and a number of techniques that researchers can use to meet them. In
PDF An Analysis of Quality Criteria for Qualitative Research
uality and rigor in qualitative research is contentious. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of research quality criteria in quantitative research before presenting an analysis of quality frameworks for qualitative research. The paper presents the three main stances taken in quality criteria for qualitative research as a means to exploring this complex issue. The paper not ...
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. Janneke M. Frambach *, Cees P.M. van der Vleuten, Steven J. Durning *Corresponding author for this work
Bridging Conceptions of Quality in Moments of Qualitative Research
Quality assessment in qualitative research has been, and remains, a contentious issue. The qualitative literature contains a diversity of opinions on definitions of and criteria for quality.
PDF Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research in Medical Education:
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 2003;16:139-149. Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F, Davidson L. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2002;36:717-732. Frambach, JM, van der Vleuten, CPM, Durning, SJ. AM Last Page: Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research
Purpose Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
Methodological Reflections on Normative Case Studies: What They are and
In both quantitative and qualitative research, quality criteria and investigative techniques to enhance research quality tied to those criteria are well-developed. 26 Quantitative methodologies call for internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity as key indicators of quality.
Institute for Excellence in Education
The mission of the Institute for Excellence in Education (IEE) is to promote, value and advance the educational mission of the School of Medicine while enhancing the school's leadership role in medical and biomedical education. To guide this mission, IEE has identified four guiding principles or "pillars" into which all of our decisions, work ...
Criteria for Quality in Quantitative and Qualitative Writing Research
Qualitative and quantitative writing research both require standards for good evidence, even though the articulation of criteria in the two approaches is different. Below, we provide a description of high quality writing research practices.
Europe PMC
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.
Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods
This article reports some findings from an investigation of social policy researchers in the UK. The findings relate to the quality criteria that social policy researchers deem to he appropriate to quantitative research, qualitative research and mixed methods research. The data derive from an e-survey of researchers which was followed up by semi-structured interviews with a purposively ...
Land
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. ... and qualitative and quantitative assessment of singular sites that reflect the immense geodiversity of the region; (2) their integration into a geoeducational traverse; and (3) the proposal of a guidebook that includes several field ...

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research

Similar articles

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Other Literature Sources

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research

Access to Document

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.

185 Citations

Related Papers

AM Last Page: Quality Criteria in Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Similar works

Radboud Repository

Having an issue?

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

What is Qualitative in Research

Introduction

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

Improving Quality: Strategies

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Are the terms reliability and validity relevant to ensuring credibility in qualitative research?

What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings?

Read the full text or download the PDF:

AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.

Fingerprint

Secondary Logo

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusions

Limitations, strengths, and boundaries

Implications and application

References Cited Only in Table 2

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland, Starting Immediately

Institute for Excellence in Education

About the IEE

IEE Calls to Action

Nominations

Present Your Scholarship

Celebrating 10 Years of the IEE

Educator Domains, Competencies and Metrics

Foundations of Educational Scholarship Course

16 OCTOBER 2024

17 JANUARY 2024

Our Community of Educators

Criteria for Quality in Quantitative and Qualitative Writing Research

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

1. Introduction

3. Methodology

4. The EN280 Leba Road and the Inventory of Its Outcrops

7. Discussion

8. Conclusions

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

COMMENTS