Evaluating Qualitative Evidence Discussion

Consider a focused PICOT-style question of interest to you, relative to your professional field, setting, or interest that can be addressed with qualitative literature. Please include this PICOT question in your discussion. Locate and post an article from the literature that provides qualitative evidence to address this question.

Identify the particular qualitative study design used in the journal article (e.g., phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography). Evaluate methods the authors used to address trustworthiness criteria of: credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability.

For this discussion:
Initial post: 300 words
References required: 1

Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeKnowledge of the subject matter
15 to >13.48 pts
A
Initial post brings forth new or expanded ideas that reflect high-level critical thinking on the topic and demonstrate practical application.
13.48 to >11.98 pts
B
Initial post illustrates good knowledge of the topic, but includes limited application or expansion on ideas.
11.98 to >10.48 pts
C
Initial post illustrates basic knowledge of the topic without applying or expanding ideas.
10.48 to >0 pts
F
Initial post displays only a minimal grasp of the concepts covered. Does not expand upon the central concepts.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence of research
15 to >13.48 pts
A
Initial post applies research to support and extend all ideas, and includes proper citations.
13.48 to >11.98 pts
B
Initial post applies some research to support and extend ideas, and includes some citations.
11.98 to >10.48 pts
C
Initial post includes minimal research to support ideas, and fails to provide citations.
10.48 to >0 pts
F
Initial post lacks supporting research.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResponse to others
15 to >13.48 pts
A
Responses clearly support or refute the initial postings and further the discussion with critical analysis.
13.48 to >11.98 pts
B
Responses support or refute initial postings with adequate discussion, but critical analysis to further the discussion is limited.
11.98 to >10.48 pts
C
Responses support or refute the initial postings with limited discussion and without furthering the discussion through critical analysis.
10.48 to >0 pts
F
Does not refer to the posting directly, or simply agrees or disagrees without explanation.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, punctuation, spelling
15 to >13.48 pts
A
Proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling were used throughout the discussion posts.
13.48 to >11.98 pts
B
Discussion posts contained a few minor errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
11.98 to >10.48 pts
C
Discussion posts contained several errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling.
10.48 to >0 pts
F
Discussion posts contain substantial errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness
7.5 to >6.74 pts
A
Initial posting completed by Wednesday and response to others posted by Sunday.
6.74 to >5.99 pts
B
Initial posting completed by Thursday and response to others posted by Sunday.
5.99 to >5.24 pts
C
Initial posting completed after Thursday OR response to others posted after Sunday.
5.24 to >0 pts
F
Initial posting after Thursday AND response to others posted after Sunday.
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength of posts
7.5 to >6.74 pts
A
Length requirements for the initial post and response post were met.
6.74 to >5.99 pts
B
Length requirements were met for the initial post, but not for response post.
5.99 to >5.24 pts
C
Length requirements were not met for the initial post, but they were for the response post.
5.24 to >0 pts
F
Length requirements for discussion posts were not met.
7.5 pts
Total Points: 75

ANSWER

Evaluating Qualitative Evidence

Qualitative research is becoming increasingly recognized and highly valued, and therefore it must be conducted rigorously and methodically. For qualitative research to be accepted, the data presented must be trustworthy, and the researchers must demonstrate that the research was conducted concisely and exhaustively. Shermeyer et al. (2019) used the grounded theory in their research in their study on the benefits of problem-focused engagement. The grounded theory involves the collection and collection of data. The theory is grounded and thus uses the actual data analysis or rather ted at collected is used to develop the theories. The method was introduced in 1967. The study by Shermeyer et al. (2019) involves a daily survey. Participants were asked to describe their most stressful day experience and to rate the level of the stress involved. The data collected from different participants over a period of time was then used to develop a theory on coping mechanisms.

The trustworthiness of a source during research is critical to getting to the goal. The authors, in this case, proved the trustworthiness of their research by first ensuring that their research findings were credible. Credibility can be recognized through alignment between the theory, research question and data volume. In this case, all these aspects align with the research. The research can also be said to be dependable as the authors produce sufficient information. Another researcher can use the information in their research. The article also shows how they made their findings through detailed description, and thus it can be confirmed. The context in which the research was performed is also stated. For example, they state that the research was done on college students. The authors of the study ensured that their research addressed trustworthiness by ensuring that the research was credible, dependable and confirmable.

References

Shermeyer, L., Morrow, M. T., & Mediate, N. (2019). College students’ daily coping, mood, and quality of life: Benefits of problem‐focused engagement. Stress and Health, 35(2), 211-216.