qualitative and quantitative research google scholar

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• ESHRE Pages
• Mini-reviews
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Reasons to Publish
• Open Access
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Advertising
• Reprints and ePrints
• Sponsored Supplements
• Branded Books
• Journals Career Network
• About Human Reproduction
• About the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
• Editorial Board
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ESHRE
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, when to use qualitative research, how to judge qualitative research, conclusions, authors' roles, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

K. Hammarberg, M. Kirkman, S. de Lacey, Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them, Human Reproduction , Volume 31, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 498–501, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In March 2015, an impressive set of guidelines for best practice on how to incorporate psychosocial care in routine infertility care was published by the ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group ( ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group, 2015 ). The authors report that the guidelines are based on a comprehensive review of the literature and we congratulate them on their meticulous compilation of evidence into a clinically useful document. However, when we read the methodology section, we were baffled and disappointed to find that evidence from research using qualitative methods was not included in the formulation of the guidelines. Despite stating that ‘qualitative research has significant value to assess the lived experience of infertility and fertility treatment’, the group excluded this body of evidence because qualitative research is ‘not generally hypothesis-driven and not objective/neutral, as the researcher puts him/herself in the position of the participant to understand how the world is from the person's perspective’.

Qualitative and quantitative research methods are often juxtaposed as representing two different world views. In quantitative circles, qualitative research is commonly viewed with suspicion and considered lightweight because it involves small samples which may not be representative of the broader population, it is seen as not objective, and the results are assessed as biased by the researchers' own experiences or opinions. In qualitative circles, quantitative research can be dismissed as over-simplifying individual experience in the cause of generalisation, failing to acknowledge researcher biases and expectations in research design, and requiring guesswork to understand the human meaning of aggregate data.

As social scientists who investigate psychosocial aspects of human reproduction, we use qualitative and quantitative methods, separately or together, depending on the research question. The crucial part is to know when to use what method.

The peer-review process is a pillar of scientific publishing. One of the important roles of reviewers is to assess the scientific rigour of the studies from which authors draw their conclusions. If rigour is lacking, the paper should not be published. As with research using quantitative methods, research using qualitative methods is home to the good, the bad and the ugly. It is essential that reviewers know the difference. Rejection letters are hard to take but more often than not they are based on legitimate critique. However, from time to time it is obvious that the reviewer has little grasp of what constitutes rigour or quality in qualitative research. The first author (K.H.) recently submitted a paper that reported findings from a qualitative study about fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age. In the rejection letter one of the reviewers (not from Human Reproduction ) lamented, ‘Even for a qualitative study, I would expect that some form of confidence interval and paired t-tables analysis, etc. be used to analyse the significance of results'. This comment reveals the reviewer's inappropriate application to qualitative research of criteria relevant only to quantitative research.

In this commentary, we give illustrative examples of questions most appropriately answered using qualitative methods and provide general advice about how to appraise the scientific rigour of qualitative studies. We hope this will help the journal's reviewers and readers appreciate the legitimate place of qualitative research and ensure we do not throw the baby out with the bath water by excluding or rejecting papers simply because they report the results of qualitative studies.

In psychosocial research, ‘quantitative’ research methods are appropriate when ‘factual’ data are required to answer the research question; when general or probability information is sought on opinions, attitudes, views, beliefs or preferences; when variables can be isolated and defined; when variables can be linked to form hypotheses before data collection; and when the question or problem is known, clear and unambiguous. Quantitative methods can reveal, for example, what percentage of the population supports assisted conception, their distribution by age, marital status, residential area and so on, as well as changes from one survey to the next ( Kovacs et al. , 2012 ); the number of donors and donor siblings located by parents of donor-conceived children ( Freeman et al. , 2009 ); and the relationship between the attitude of donor-conceived people to learning of their donor insemination conception and their family ‘type’ (one or two parents, lesbian or heterosexual parents; Beeson et al. , 2011 ).

In contrast, ‘qualitative’ methods are used to answer questions about experience, meaning and perspective, most often from the standpoint of the participant. These data are usually not amenable to counting or measuring. Qualitative research techniques include ‘small-group discussions’ for investigating beliefs, attitudes and concepts of normative behaviour; ‘semi-structured interviews’, to seek views on a focused topic or, with key informants, for background information or an institutional perspective; ‘in-depth interviews’ to understand a condition, experience, or event from a personal perspective; and ‘analysis of texts and documents’, such as government reports, media articles, websites or diaries, to learn about distributed or private knowledge.

Qualitative methods have been used to reveal, for example, potential problems in implementing a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer, where small-group discussions enabled staff to explain their own resistance, leading to an amended approach ( Porter and Bhattacharya, 2005 ). Small-group discussions among assisted reproductive technology (ART) counsellors were used to investigate how the welfare principle is interpreted and practised by health professionals who must apply it in ART ( de Lacey et al. , 2015 ). When legislative change meant that gamete donors could seek identifying details of people conceived from their gametes, parents needed advice on how best to tell their children. Small-group discussions were convened to ask adolescents (not known to be donor-conceived) to reflect on how they would prefer to be told ( Kirkman et al. , 2007 ).

When a population cannot be identified, such as anonymous sperm donors from the 1980s, a qualitative approach with wide publicity can reach people who do not usually volunteer for research and reveal (for example) their attitudes to proposed legislation to remove anonymity with retrospective effect ( Hammarberg et al. , 2014 ). When researchers invite people to talk about their reflections on experience, they can sometimes learn more than they set out to discover. In describing their responses to proposed legislative change, participants also talked about people conceived as a result of their donations, demonstrating various constructions and expectations of relationships ( Kirkman et al. , 2014 ).

Interviews with parents in lesbian-parented families generated insight into the diverse meanings of the sperm donor in the creation and life of the family ( Wyverkens et al. , 2014 ). Oral and written interviews also revealed the embarrassment and ambivalence surrounding sperm donors evident in participants in donor-assisted conception ( Kirkman, 2004 ). The way in which parents conceptualise unused embryos and why they discard rather than donate was explored and understood via in-depth interviews, showing how and why the meaning of those embryos changed with parenthood ( de Lacey, 2005 ). In-depth interviews were also used to establish the intricate understanding by embryo donors and recipients of the meaning of embryo donation and the families built as a result ( Goedeke et al. , 2015 ).

It is possible to combine quantitative and qualitative methods, although great care should be taken to ensure that the theory behind each method is compatible and that the methods are being used for appropriate reasons. The two methods can be used sequentially (first a quantitative then a qualitative study or vice versa), where the first approach is used to facilitate the design of the second; they can be used in parallel as different approaches to the same question; or a dominant method may be enriched with a small component of an alternative method (such as qualitative interviews ‘nested’ in a large survey). It is important to note that free text in surveys represents qualitative data but does not constitute qualitative research. Qualitative and quantitative methods may be used together for corroboration (hoping for similar outcomes from both methods), elaboration (using qualitative data to explain or interpret quantitative data, or to demonstrate how the quantitative findings apply in particular cases), complementarity (where the qualitative and quantitative results differ but generate complementary insights) or contradiction (where qualitative and quantitative data lead to different conclusions). Each has its advantages and challenges ( Brannen, 2005 ).

Qualitative research is gaining increased momentum in the clinical setting and carries different criteria for evaluating its rigour or quality. Quantitative studies generally involve the systematic collection of data about a phenomenon, using standardized measures and statistical analysis. In contrast, qualitative studies involve the systematic collection, organization, description and interpretation of textual, verbal or visual data. The particular approach taken determines to a certain extent the criteria used for judging the quality of the report. However, research using qualitative methods can be evaluated ( Dixon-Woods et al. , 2006 ; Young et al. , 2014 ) and there are some generic guidelines for assessing qualitative research ( Kitto et al. , 2008 ).

Although the terms ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ are contentious among qualitative researchers ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ) with some preferring ‘verification’, research integrity and robustness are as important in qualitative studies as they are in other forms of research. It is widely accepted that qualitative research should be ethical, important, intelligibly described, and use appropriate and rigorous methods ( Cohen and Crabtree, 2008 ). In research investigating data that can be counted or measured, replicability is essential. When other kinds of data are gathered in order to answer questions of personal or social meaning, we need to be able to capture real-life experiences, which cannot be identical from one person to the next. Furthermore, meaning is culturally determined and subject to evolutionary change. The way of explaining a phenomenon—such as what it means to use donated gametes—will vary, for example, according to the cultural significance of ‘blood’ or genes, interpretations of marital infidelity and religious constructs of sexual relationships and families. Culture may apply to a country, a community, or other actual or virtual group, and a person may be engaged at various levels of culture. In identifying meaning for members of a particular group, consistency may indeed be found from one research project to another. However, individuals within a cultural group may present different experiences and perceptions or transgress cultural expectations. That does not make them ‘wrong’ or invalidate the research. Rather, it offers insight into diversity and adds a piece to the puzzle to which other researchers also contribute.

In qualitative research the objective stance is obsolete, the researcher is the instrument, and ‘subjects’ become ‘participants’ who may contribute to data interpretation and analysis ( Denzin and Lincoln, 1998 ). Qualitative researchers defend the integrity of their work by different means: trustworthiness, credibility, applicability and consistency are the evaluative criteria ( Leininger, 1994 ).

Trustworthiness

A report of a qualitative study should contain the same robust procedural description as any other study. The purpose of the research, how it was conducted, procedural decisions, and details of data generation and management should be transparent and explicit. A reviewer should be able to follow the progression of events and decisions and understand their logic because there is adequate description, explanation and justification of the methodology and methods ( Kitto et al. , 2008 )

Credibility

Credibility is the criterion for evaluating the truth value or internal validity of qualitative research. A qualitative study is credible when its results, presented with adequate descriptions of context, are recognizable to people who share the experience and those who care for or treat them. As the instrument in qualitative research, the researcher defends its credibility through practices such as reflexivity (reflection on the influence of the researcher on the research), triangulation (where appropriate, answering the research question in several ways, such as through interviews, observation and documentary analysis) and substantial description of the interpretation process; verbatim quotations from the data are supplied to illustrate and support their interpretations ( Sandelowski, 1986 ). Where excerpts of data and interpretations are incongruent, the credibility of the study is in doubt.

Applicability

Applicability, or transferability of the research findings, is the criterion for evaluating external validity. A study is considered to meet the criterion of applicability when its findings can fit into contexts outside the study situation and when clinicians and researchers view the findings as meaningful and applicable in their own experiences.

Larger sample sizes do not produce greater applicability. Depth may be sacrificed to breadth or there may be too much data for adequate analysis. Sample sizes in qualitative research are typically small. The term ‘saturation’ is often used in reference to decisions about sample size in research using qualitative methods. Emerging from grounded theory, where filling theoretical categories is considered essential to the robustness of the developing theory, data saturation has been expanded to describe a situation where data tend towards repetition or where data cease to offer new directions and raise new questions ( Charmaz, 2005 ). However, the legitimacy of saturation as a generic marker of sampling adequacy has been questioned ( O'Reilly and Parker, 2013 ). Caution must be exercised to ensure that a commitment to saturation does not assume an ‘essence’ of an experience in which limited diversity is anticipated; each account is likely to be subtly different and each ‘sample’ will contribute to knowledge without telling the whole story. Increasingly, it is expected that researchers will report the kind of saturation they have applied and their criteria for recognising its achievement; an assessor will need to judge whether the choice is appropriate and consistent with the theoretical context within which the research has been conducted.

Sampling strategies are usually purposive, convenient, theoretical or snowballed. Maximum variation sampling may be used to seek representation of diverse perspectives on the topic. Homogeneous sampling may be used to recruit a group of participants with specified criteria. The threat of bias is irrelevant; participants are recruited and selected specifically because they can illuminate the phenomenon being studied. Rather than being predetermined by statistical power analysis, qualitative study samples are dependent on the nature of the data, the availability of participants and where those data take the investigator. Multiple data collections may also take place to obtain maximum insight into sensitive topics. For instance, the question of how decisions are made for embryo disposition may involve sampling within the patient group as well as from scientists, clinicians, counsellors and clinic administrators.

Consistency

Consistency, or dependability of the results, is the criterion for assessing reliability. This does not mean that the same result would necessarily be found in other contexts but that, given the same data, other researchers would find similar patterns. Researchers often seek maximum variation in the experience of a phenomenon, not only to illuminate it but also to discourage fulfilment of limited researcher expectations (for example, negative cases or instances that do not fit the emerging interpretation or theory should be actively sought and explored). Qualitative researchers sometimes describe the processes by which verification of the theoretical findings by another team member takes place ( Morse and Richards, 2002 ).

Research that uses qualitative methods is not, as it seems sometimes to be represented, the easy option, nor is it a collation of anecdotes. It usually involves a complex theoretical or philosophical framework. Rigorous analysis is conducted without the aid of straightforward mathematical rules. Researchers must demonstrate the validity of their analysis and conclusions, resulting in longer papers and occasional frustration with the word limits of appropriate journals. Nevertheless, we need the different kinds of evidence that is generated by qualitative methods. The experience of health, illness and medical intervention cannot always be counted and measured; researchers need to understand what they mean to individuals and groups. Knowledge gained from qualitative research methods can inform clinical practice, indicate how to support people living with chronic conditions and contribute to community education and awareness about people who are (for example) experiencing infertility or using assisted conception.

Each author drafted a section of the manuscript and the manuscript as a whole was reviewed and revised by all authors in consultation.

No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Beeson D , Jennings P , Kramer W . Offspring searching for their sperm donors: how family types shape the process . Hum Reprod 2011 ; 26 : 2415 – 2424 .

Google Scholar

Brannen J . Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process . Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005 ; 8 : 173 – 184 .

Charmaz K . Grounded Theory in the 21st century; applications for advancing social justice studies . In: Denzin NK , Lincoln YS (eds). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research . California : Sage Publications Inc. , 2005 .

Google Preview

Cohen D , Crabtree B . Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations . Ann Fam Med 2008 ; 6 : 331 – 339 .

de Lacey S . Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos . Hum Reprod 2005 ; 20 : 1661 – 1669 .

de Lacey SL , Peterson K , McMillan J . Child interests in assisted reproductive technology: how is the welfare principle applied in practice? Hum Reprod 2015 ; 30 : 616 – 624 .

Denzin N , Lincoln Y . Entering the field of qualitative research . In: Denzin NK , Lincoln YS (eds). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues . Thousand Oaks : Sage , 1998 , 1 – 34 .

Dixon-Woods M , Bonas S , Booth A , Jones DR , Miller T , Shaw RL , Smith JA , Young B . How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective . Qual Res 2006 ; 6 : 27 – 44 .

ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group . Routine Psychosocial Care in Infertility and Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Guide for Fertility Staff , 2015 . http://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Psychosocial-care-guideline.aspx .

Freeman T , Jadva V , Kramer W , Golombok S . Gamete donation: parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings or donor . Hum Reprod 2009 ; 24 : 505 – 516 .

Goedeke S , Daniels K , Thorpe M , Du Preez E . Building extended families through embryo donation: the experiences of donors and recipients . Hum Reprod 2015 ; 30 : 2340 – 2350 .

Hammarberg K , Johnson L , Bourne K , Fisher J , Kirkman M . Proposed legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information: consultation with donors and Government response . Hum Reprod 2014 ; 29 : 286 – 292 .

Kirkman M . Saviours and satyrs: ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision . Cult Health Sex 2004 ; 6 : 319 – 336 .

Kirkman M , Rosenthal D , Johnson L . Families working it out: adolescents' views on communicating about donor-assisted conception . Hum Reprod 2007 ; 22 : 2318 – 2324 .

Kirkman M , Bourne K , Fisher J , Johnson L , Hammarberg K . Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring . Hum Reprod 2014 ; 29 : 731 – 738 .

Kitto S , Chesters J , Grbich C . Quality in qualitative research . Med J Aust 2008 ; 188 : 243 – 246 .

Kovacs GT , Morgan G , Levine M , McCrann J . The Australian community overwhelmingly approves IVF to treat subfertility, with increasing support over three decades . Aust N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol 2012 ; 52 : 302 – 304 .

Leininger M . Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies . In: Morse J (ed). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods . Thousand Oaks : Sage , 1994 , 95 – 115 .

Lincoln YS , Guba EG . Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications , 1985 .

Morse J , Richards L . Readme First for a Users Guide to Qualitative Methods . Thousand Oaks : Sage , 2002 .

O'Reilly M , Parker N . ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research . Qual Res 2013 ; 13 : 190 – 197 .

Porter M , Bhattacharya S . Investigation of staff and patients' opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer . Hum Reprod 2005 ; 20 : 2523 – 2530 .

Sandelowski M . The problem of rigor in qualitative research . Adv Nurs Sci 1986 ; 8 : 27 – 37 .

Wyverkens E , Provoost V , Ravelingien A , De Sutter P , Pennings G , Buysse A . Beyond sperm cells: a qualitative study on constructed meanings of the sperm donor in lesbian families . Hum Reprod 2014 ; 29 : 1248 – 1254 .

Young K , Fisher J , Kirkman M . Women's experiences of endometriosis: a systematic review of qualitative research . J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2014 ; 41 : 225 – 234 .

• conflict of interest
• credibility
• qualitative research
• quantitative methods

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2350
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

New Scholar

• Tips for Publishing
• Publishing Process Overview
• Selecting a Journal Overview
• Conference Presentation or Poster Session Overview
• Predatory Publishers

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research

Types of empirical research, list of journals friendly to qualitative work.

• Understanding Research Impact This link opens in a new window

Quantitative Research is used to quantify the problem by way of generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into useable statistics. It is used to quantify attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and other defined variables – and generalize results from a larger sample population.

Qualitative Research is primarily exploratory research.  It is used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations. This data is usually gathered using conversational methods such as interviews or focus groups.

Some journals and even some disciplines may have a preference as to what type of empirical research they wish to publish.  Some authors who have written an article that is primarily qualitative in nature, may seek out journals that are "qualitative research friendly." We have listed a few such journals below. 

• International Journal of Qualitative Methods
• Journal of Mixed Methods Research
• Quality & Quantity
• List of qualitative research journals compiled by Saint Louis University

You can also look through the last few issues of a journal to see if the articles they publish tend to be more qualitative or quantitative in nature.

• << Previous: Predatory Publishers
• Next: Understanding Research Impact >>
• Last Updated: Jul 16, 2024 9:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.rochester.edu/newscholar

Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

• September 2017
• 3(9):369-387

• Instituto Superior Politécnico Gaya
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Imroatin Nuzula
• Zaki Nur Fahmawati
• Renu Durga Vanipenta

• Fikri Fuadi Azmy

• Aleksandra Sobczak
• Ana C. Ferreira

• José Augusto Monteiro

• C.R.Kothari
• Hamza Alshenqeeti
• Looi Theam Choy
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Quantitative and qualitative research

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Albert Einstein 1

Some clinicians still believe that qualitative research is a “soft” science and of lesser value to clinical decision making, but this position is no longer tenable. 2 - 4 A quick search using the key word qualitative on the Canadian Family Physician website generated more than 100 qualitative research articles published in the past 3 years alone.

This paper provides an overview of the history of science to help readers appreciate the basic epistemological commonalities and differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.

Age of Enlightenment

Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642), Descartes (1596-1650), and Newton (1643-1727) were instrumental in carving the path to the Enlightenment (1700-1789)—an intellectual movement credited with introducing systematic inquiry and the scientific method. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), regarded as the founder of modern social science and credited with advancing a philosophic theory of positivism (ie, that factual knowledge can only be attained through observable experience), emphasized that the search for objective truth and knowledge must follow a nomothetic (ie, relating to the discovery of universal laws) and empirical (ie, based on experiment and observation) approach. Scientists of the Enlightenment era asserted that we must be free of the uncertainties of time, place, history, and culture in order to discover how the world works. This is referred to as the received view of science. 5

Received view

Essentially, the received view posits that the world is made up of absolute truths existing independently of human consciousness. Knowledge is available for objective discovery within a causal and factual form. A reductionist approach to problem solving is used; theories are formulated and tested experimentally to verify or falsify different hypotheses; and numerical tests based on probabilistic theory are used to establish the levels of relationships between measurable variables.

Conversely, in Critique of Pure Reason (Immanuel Kant’s 1781 thesis, which followed the work of Plato), Kant asserts that human reason also plays a key role in determining what constitutes knowledge. Unlike Comte, who favoured empirical experience as the most legitimate source of knowledge and who argued that pure knowledge begins and ends with sense experience free of subjective interpretation, Kant states that we not only experience the world as it presents itself to us, but we also interpret it. 4

Interpretivist view

Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Georg Simmel (1858-1918), Max Weber (1864-1920), Max Scheler (1874-1928), and Karl Mannheim (1893-1947), among others, produced sharp criticisms against the prevailing conception of science for understanding social interactions. Using Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770-1831) idea that subjectivity is an inherent part of cognition, these social scientists rejected the claims that science, as a practice of discovery of a world independent of our senses, can in fact represent the absolute reality of social phenomena. The interpretivist view, 6 therefore, posits that knowledge is socially constructed and ephemeral. 7 In other words, it is influenced by history, culture, power differences in society, and politics. 8 In his cogent thesis The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Thomas Kuhn argues that the interpretive nature is deeply and undeniably embedded in science. 9

What is common among both experienced and budding researchers alike, whether from the positivist tradition or the interpretivist one, is a realization that an increasingly sophisticated representation of any particular phenomenon requires a form of systematic investigation. Those who employ qualitative methods usually seek in-depth perspectives on how society is thought to operate and the related historical, cultural, social, and political influences that affect how decisions are made. Those who use quantitative methods search for laws and principles that can help to predict how the world works. To understand the world better, some researchers use laboratories and clinics while others use cultural and social spaces. Yet all researchers regard their endeavours as a means to improve quality of life and well-being.

Whether researchers use qualitative or quantitative methods, they are building knowledge, which, in the end, is applied to our understanding of the world, allowing us to better care for our patients.

Hypothesis is a quarterly series in Canadian Family Physician , coordinated by the Section of Researchers of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The goal is to explore clinically relevant research concepts for all CFP readers. Submissions are invited from researchers and nonresearchers. Ideas or submissions can be submitted on-line at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cfp or through the CFP website www.cfp.ca ; under “Authors.”

Competing interests

None declared

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Facilitators of and Barriers to Caregiver Adherence to Home Therapy Recommendations for Infants and Children With Neuromotor and Neuromuscular Diagnoses: A Scoping Review

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Jennifer Wingrat , Carrie Price , Tess Wright; Facilitators of and Barriers to Caregiver Adherence to Home Therapy Recommendations for Infants and Children With Neuromotor and Neuromuscular Diagnoses: A Scoping Review. Am J Occup Ther September/October 2024, Vol. 78(5), 7805205070. doi: https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050567

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Importance: Caregiver-performed home therapy programs are essential to occupational therapy intervention for infants and children with neuromotor and neuromuscular diagnoses. Factors that facilitate or are barriers to caregiver adherence when making home therapy recommendations should be considered.

Objective: To identify facilitators of and barriers to caregiver adherence to home therapy recommendations for children with neuromotor and neuromuscular disorders.

Method: The review followed the five-step methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

Data Sources: Searches with no language or date range limits were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX on the EBSCO platform, and Scopus on the Elsevier platform from database inception through January 24, 2023.

Study Selection and Data Collection: Study inclusion criteria included caregiver adherence to home therapy recommendations for children with neuromotor and neuromuscular diagnoses. Eight hundred seventy-five articles underwent title and abstract screening; 64 articles met the criteria for full review.

Findings: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Four used qualitative measures, 7 used quantitative measures, and 1 used mixed methods. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed four facilitators: routine, efficacy of caregiver education, positive relationship with therapist, and perceived benefit of treatment. The analysis revealed three barriers: lack of time, lack of confidence, and caregiver stress.

Conclusions and Relevance: The facilitators and barriers identified are central to best-practice occupational therapy. Therapists can use expertise in analyzing routines and context to maximize the fit between family needs and home therapy recommendations.

Plain-Language Summary: Home therapy for children with a neuromotor and neuromuscular diagnosis is common and uses some form of caregiver-performed movement activities or techniques. To support caregivers, occupational therapists need to understand what factors facilitate or serve as barriers to following home therapy recommendations. The review found three barriers: lack of time, lack of confidence, and caregiver stress. The review provides strategies to support home therapy based on core principles of occupational therapy practice. It also identifies the need for more research to support home therapy recommendations that fit within the child’s and family’s routine, that can be taught in a way that meets the child’s and family’s learning needs, that facilitate self-efficacy and confidence, and that reflect the values and motivators of all participants.

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

• Special Collections
• Conference Abstracts
• Browse AOTA Taxonomy
• AJOT Authors & Issues Series
• Online ISSN 1943-7676
• Print ISSN 0272-9490
• Author Guidelines
• Permissions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Copyright © American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 10 August 2022
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Christina Mazzola Nicols 3  

52 Accesses

1 Definition

Research that aims to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the factors contributing to the behavior. Frequent methods of qualitative data collection include observation, in-depth interviews, and focus groups. Words, pictures, or objects comprise the resulting data.

A qualitative research method used to understand behaviors in a natural setting. The researcher relies on their observations of the subject to collect and analyze data.

A qualitative method in which an interviewer directs a series of questions to the person he/she is interviewing, typically either in person or by telephone. As an interview progresses, questions tend to move from the general to the specific.

Interviews conducted in small groups of participants instead of individuals. Typically, a trained moderator leads a focused discussion among eight to ten participants over the course of 1–2 h. Focus groups can be conducted in...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Further Readings

Douglas Evans, W. (2016). Social marketing research for global public health: Methods and technologies . Oxford Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hicks, N. J., & Nicols, C. M. (2016). Health industry communication: New media, new methods, new message (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Google Scholar  

Siegel, M., & Lotenberg, L. D. (2007). Marketing public health: Strategies to promote social change (2nd ed.). Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hager Sharp, Washington, DC, USA

Christina Mazzola Nicols

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Mazzola Nicols .

Section Editor information

Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, D. C., USA

American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Marco Bardus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Nicols, C.M. (2021). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Social Marketing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14449-4_154-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14449-4_154-1

Received : 11 May 2020

Accepted : 07 July 2021

Published : 10 August 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-14449-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-14449-4

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research