BJSW Advance Access originally published online on October 31, 2005
British Journal of Social Work 2007 37(2):335-354; doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch361
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grading Gems: Appraising the Quality of Research for Social Work and Social Care
Brian Taylor is Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Ulster. Martin Dempster is Lecturer in Psychology, and Michael Donnelly is Reader in the Department of Epidemiology at Queen’s University Belfast. An earlier version of some of this material was presented at a conference: Taylor BJ and Donnelly M ‘Graded grains make finer findings: Appraising the quality of a wide range of designs and methods’, paper presented at the XII Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa, Canada, 1–6 October 2004.
Correspondence to Dr Brian Taylor, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Road, Newtownabbey BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland. E-mail: bj.taylor{at}ulster.ac.uk
The impetus towards basing practice and policy decisions more explicitly on sound research requires tools to facilitate the systematic appraisal of the quality of research encompassing a diverse range of methods and designs. Five exemplar tools were developed and assessed in terms of their usefulness in selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. The widely used ‘hierarchy of evidence’ was adapted and used to appraise internal validity. Four tools were then developed to appraise the external validity dimensions of generalizability (two scales) and methods of data collection (two scales). Methods of combining the scores generated by each tool were explored. Qualitative and quantitative studies were appraised, not separated into two spheres but by using complementary tools developed to appraise different aspects of rigour. There was a high level of agreement between researchers in applying the tools to twenty-two studies on decision making by professionals about the long-term care of older people. The scales for internal validity and generalizability discriminated between the qualities of studies appropriately. The two tools to appraise data collection gave diverse results. Excluding studies that scored in the lowest category on any scale appeared to be the scoring system that was most justifiable. This approach is presented to stimulate debate about the practical application of the evidence-based initiative to social work and social care. This study may assist in developing clearer definitions and common language about appraising rigour that should further the process of selecting robust research for synthesis to inform practice and policy decisions.
Keywords: appraisal of research, systematic review, evidence-based practice
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. J. Taylor Invited Commentary on Papers by Holden et al. and Shek on the Quality of Social Work Abstracts Research on Social Work Practice, May 1, 2009; 19(3): 366 - 369. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Taylor, E. Wylie, M. Dempster, and M. Donnelly Systematically Retrieving Research: A Case Study Evaluating Seven Databases Research on Social Work Practice, November 1, 2007; 17(6): 697 - 706. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|