Increasing the visibility of coding decisions in team-based qualitative research in nursing

International Journal of Nursing Studies

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 15-20

  Thompson, Carl ^a   McCaughan, Dorothy ^a   Cullum, Nicky ^a   Sheldon, Trevor A ^a   Raynor, Pauline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Collaborative research; Inter rater reliability; Multi rater Kappa; Nursing decisions; Qualitative descriptive coding

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CODING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH SERVICE; MEASUREMENT; NURSING; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 0348110628     PISSN: 00207489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2003.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Armstrong D. The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research. an empirical study Sociology. 31:1997;597-606.
2. Carey J.W., Morgan M., Oxtoby M.J. Intercoder agreement in analysis of responses to open ended interview questions. examples from tubercolisis research Cultural Anthropology Methods. 8:2000;1-5.
3. Cicchetti D., Feinstein A. High agreement but low Kappa. II Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 43:1990;551-558.
4. Cook D.J. Clinical assessment of central venous pressure in the critically ill. American Journal of Medical Science. 229:1990;175-178.
5. Cullum N. Identification and analysis of randomised controlled trials in nursing. a preliminary study Quality in Health Care. 6:1997;2-6.
6. Ely J.W., Osheroff J.A., Ebell M.H., Bergus G.R., Levy B.T., Chambliss M.L., Evans E.R. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. British Medical Journal. 319:1999;358-361.
7. Feinstein A., Cicchetti D. High agreement but low Kappa. I. The problems of two paradoxes Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 43:1990;543-549.
8. Greenhalgh T., Taylor R. How to read a paper. papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) British Medical Journal. 315:1997;740-743.
9. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. Effective Evaluation. Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches: 1981;Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
10. JAMA (2002). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence Based Clinical Practice. AMA Press, Chicago.
11. Mays N., Pope C. Qualitative research. rigour and qualitative research British Medical Journal. 311:1995;109-112.
12. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis. 1994;Sage, London.
13. Morse J.M., Barratt M., Mayan M., Olson K., Spiers J. Verifaction strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 1:2002;11-23.
14. Murphy E., Dingwall R., Greatbatch D., Parker S., Watson P. Qualitiative research methods in health technology assessment. a review of the literature Health Technology Assessment. 2:1998;16.
15. Roebuck A., Furze G., Thompson D.R. Health-related quality of life after myocardial infarction. an interview study Journal of Advanced Nursing. 34:2001;787-794.
16. Seale C. The Quality of Qualitative Research. 1999;Sage, London.
17. Siegel S., Castellan J.N. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. 1988;McGraw-Hill, New York.
18. Thompson C., McCaughan D., Cullum N., Sheldon T.A., Mulhall A., Thompson D.R. The accessibility of research-based knowledge for nurses in United Kingdom acute care settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 36:2001;11-22.