Appraising qualitative research:

an example

Damhnat McCann

Article for appraisal

 Fleming et al 2012, ‘Brain injury rehabilitation: The

lived experience of inpatients and their family
caregivers’, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational
Therapy, vol. 19, pp. 184 -193.

 Appraisal based on the CASP tool 10 questions to

help you make sense of qualitative research

Q1: Was there a clear statement of the

aims of the research?

 The study aims to describ e and interpret the

inpatient b rain injury rehab ilitation experience
from the perspective of patients and their
family caregivers

 Justification is provided
(page 185)

1
 Q2: Is a qualitative methodology
appropriate?

Yes
 …focus on individuals’ sub jective
experiences (phenomenology therefore an
appropriate choice) (page 185)

 The lack of research in this area justifies the

use of a qualitative approach.

Q3: Was the research design appropriate to

address the aims of the research?

Yes
 Methods chosen correspond with the stated aim

 Following this approach, in-depth semi structured

interviews were conducted with participants and their
family caregivers… in an attempt to gain a deep
understanding of how the phenomena of “transition”
appeared from their perspective (page 185)

Q4: Was the recruitment strategy

appropriate to the aims of the research?

Yes
 Criterion based purposive sampling used
 Clear description provided of eligibility
criteria, cause of ABI and patient/carer
demographics and the setting
 Provided information about those not
participating in the study and why
(see pages 185-186)

2
 Q5: Was data collected in a way that
addressed the research issue?

Yes
 Semi-structured interviews at the hospital - part of a
larger study
 Interview guide (set of questions) used to ensure
consistency but guide not provided
 Interviews recorded + field notes – both transcribed
 Data saturation (no new information emerging)
determined by collaborative discussion in team
 Participants provided with written summary of their
responses + follow-up telephone interview
(pages 185-186)

Q6: Has the relationship between researcher

& participants been adequately considered?

No

 Not discussed in the article

 No changes to design encountered

Q7: Have ethical issues been taken

into consideration?

Yes, probably

 Ethics approval granted

 Informed consent big issue with ABI –

researchers discuss how this was handled

 Interviews conducted while still an

inpatient…

3
Q8: Was the data analysis sufficiently
rigorous?

Yes
 Process of data analysis clearly described (manifest
content analytic approach)
 Two researchers selected relevant content to include
in analysis (from larger study information)
 Two researchers developed codes & final themes
and categories
 Quotes from participants used to illustrate
themes/categories – both positive & negative
perspectives

Q9: Is there a clear statement of

findings?

Yes
 Three main themes
– Rehab ilitation context/environment
– Activity/occupation
– Support and adjustment

 Note previous discussion of credibility

Q10: How valuable is research?

 How have they contributed to our current

knowledge?

 Where is more research necessary?

 How might this research affect our practice?
 Is this research relevant to your setting?
why/why not?