Focus groups are increasingly being used to provide insights to researchers and policy makers.
These data complement quantitative approaches to understanding the world.
Unfortunately, quantitative and qualitative methodologies have often been viewed as antithetical, rather than complementary, strategies.
While focus groups can clearly generate rich information that is unobtainable through other quantitative methods, it is important to determine the degree to which different raters can consistently extract information from transcripts.
Thus, our goal was to quantify agreement in the interpretation of transcripts from patient and physician focus groups, using decision-making in ischemic heart disease as a model.
We used data from focus groups with both patients and physicians that sought to identify factors affecting diagnostic and treatment decisions in ischemic heart disease.
Three raters independently reviewed transcribed audiotapes from focus groups of patients with ischemic heart disease, as well as focus groups of physicians who care for these patients.
We found that raters could not distinguish between major and minor factors reliably.
More troubling, however, is that consistency regarding the apparently straightforward judgment as to the mere presence or absence of a factor was difficult to achieve.
In particular, the three raters of each transcript failed to agree on between one third and one half of the factors. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Evaluation, Méthodologie, Analyse qualitative, Groupe social, Ethnie, Etude comparative, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Evaluation, Methodology, Qualitative analysis, Social group, Ethnic group, Comparative study, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0163623
Code Inist : 002B30A01A1. Création : 21/07/1998.