A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Qualitative Methods Used to Generate Questionnaire Items: A Systematic Review. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • A systematic review analyzed 371 articles from MEDLINE and PsycINFO published between 2000 and 2014, focusing on how qualitative methods were used to create questionnaire items.
  • Key findings included an increase in published articles over the years, with individual interviews and focus groups as the predominant methods for item generation, but no innovative approaches emerging.
  • Additionally, the review highlighted poor documentation of content analysis methods, limited expert involvement in item generation, and a majority of articles conducting further testing of items with relevant populations, indicating a need for better reporting practices in qualitative research.

Article Abstract

A systematic review of articles using qualitative methods to generate questionnaire items identified in MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2014 was carried out. Articles were analyzed for (a) year of publication and journal domain, (b) qualitative data collection methods, (c) method of data content analysis, (d) professional experts' input in item generation, and (e) debriefing of the newly developed items. In total, 371 articles were included and results showed (a) an acceleration of published articles, (b) individual interviews and focus groups were common ways of generating items and no emergent approach was identified, (c) the content analysis was usually not described (43% of articles), (d) experts were involved in eliciting concepts in less than a third of articles, (e) 61% of articles involved a step of further submission of newly developed items to the population of interest. This review showed an insufficient reporting of qualitative methods used to generate new questionnaires despite previous recommendations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732318783186DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

qualitative methods
12
methods generate
12
generate questionnaire
8
questionnaire items
8
systematic review
8
content analysis
8
newly developed
8
developed items
8
articles
7
items
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!