Criteria for Assessing a Classic Grounded Theory Study A Brief Methodological Review with Minimum Reporting Recommendations
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Reporting criteria for research studies are essential to assess the methods and to evaluate the usefulness of the findings. The purpose of this review was to identify the essential criteria to report a classic grounded theory (classic GT) study.
Method: A methodological review of the reporting criteria for a classic GT study.
Results: Grounded theory studies generally report theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation, memoing, and constant comparative analysis. In addition, classic GT studies reported unstructured interviews, a grand tour question, substantive and theoretical coding, and hypothetical probability statements. However, they did not report comprehensive literature reviews. An early focus on useability of the resulting theory was expanded to include criteria for fit, understandability, relevance, grab, general, work, control, and modifiability.
Conclusion: Essential criteria were identified for reporting grounded theory research with differentiations for classic GT. The classic GT criteria should be included as a reporting extension to complement the existing reporting guidelines.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Altman, D. G., Simera, I., Hoey, J., Moher, D., & Schulz, K. (2008). EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research. The Lancet, 371(9619), 1149-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60505-X
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publishing. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/constructinggrounded-theory/book235960
Equator Network. (2021). EQUATOR Network: What we do and how we are organised. UK EQUATOR Centre. Retrieved November 1 from https://www.equatornetwork.org/about-us/equator-network-what-we-do-and-how-we-are-organised/
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203
Glaser, B. G. (2014). Applying grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), 46-50. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2014/06/22/applying-grounded-theory/
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Qualitative Social Research Forum, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Publishing Company.
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008). What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 336(7651), 995-998. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE
Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative data. SAGE Publishing.
Leyva-Moral, J. M., Palmieri, P. A., Loayza-Enriquez, B. K., Vander Linden, K. L., Elias-Bravo, U. E., Guevara-Vasquez, G. M., Davila-Olano, L. Y., & Aguayo-Gonzalez, M. P. (2021). 'Staying alive' with antiretroviral therapy: A grounded theory study of people living with HIV in Peru. BMJ Global Health, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006772
Moher, D., Simera, I., Schulz, K. F., Hoey, J., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Medicine, 6, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-13
O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine, 8, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
Simmons, O. E. (2010). Is that a real theory or did you just make it up? Teaching classic grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 15-38.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Yalof, B. (2014). Marshaling resources: A classic grounded theory study of online learners. Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), 3. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2014/06/22/marshaling-resources-a-classicgrounded-theory-study-of-online-learners/