Conducting qualitative research in audiology: A tutorial

References

• Atkinson P. & Hammersley M. 1994. Ethnography and participant observation. N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage. 248–261.
   Google Scholar
• Barry C.A., Britten N., Barber N., Bradley C. & Stevenson F. 1999. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qual Health Res, 9, 26–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach W.A., Easter D.W., Good J.S. & Pigeron E. 2005. Disclosing and responding to cancer ‘fears’ during oncology interviews. Soc Sci Med, 60, 893–910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler R.A. & Kramer S.E. 2000. Guidelines for choosing a self-report outcome measure. Ear Hear, 21, 37S–49S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger P.L. & Luckmann T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Berntsen D. & Rubin D.C. 2006. The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into one's identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behav Res Ther, 44, 219–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley E.H., Curry L.A. & Devers K.J. 2007. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res, 42, 1758–1772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V. & Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol, 3, 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2008. Social Research Methods (3rd). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carr L.T. 1994. The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: What method for nursing? J Adv Nurs, 20, 716–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson A.J. 2005. ‘What brings you here today?’ The role of self-assessment in help-seeking for age-related hearing loss. J Aging Stud, 19, 185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. 2000. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage. 505–535.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. & Bryant A. 2010. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cheek J. 2008. Researching collaboratively: Implications for qualitative research and researchers. Qual Health Res, 18, 1599–1603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier J.J. & Collier M. 1986. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. Albuquerque, USA: University of New Mexico Press.
   Google Scholar
• Côté L. & Turgeon J. 2005. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Med Teach, 27, 71–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell J.W. 2002. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, USA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Danermark B., Cieza A., Gagné J.-P., Gimigliano F., Granberg S. . 2010. International classification of functioning, disability, and health core sets for hearing loss: A discussion paper and invitation. Int J Audiol, 49, 256–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Andrade V. & Ross E. 2005. Beliefs and practices of black South African traditional healers regarding hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 44, 89–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin N.K. & Lincoln Y.S. 2005. The SAGEHandbook of Qualitative Research (3rd). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DiCicco-Bloom B. & Crabtree B.F. 2006. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ, 40, 314–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dzurec L.C. & Abraham I.L. 1993. The nature of inquiry: Linking quantitative and qualitative research. Adv Nurs Sci, 16, 73–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elo S. & Kyngäs H. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs, 62, 107–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goulios H. & Patuzzi R.B. 2008. Audiology education and practice from an international perspective. Int J Audiol, 47, 647–664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golafshani N. 2003. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep, 8, 597–607.
   Google Scholar
• Graneheim U.H. & Lundman B. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today, 24, 105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallberg L.R.-M. & Carlsson S.G. 1991. A qualitative study of strategies for managing a hearing impairment. Br J Audiol, 25, 201–211.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hétu R., Riverin N., Lalande L., Getty L. & St-Cyr C. 1988. Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss. Br J Audiol, 22, 251–264.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hodder I. 2000. The interpretation of documents and material culture. N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage. 703–715.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh H.F. & Shannon S.E. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 15, 1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inui T.S. 1996. The virtue of qualitative and quantitative research. Ann Intern Med, 125, 770–771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiessling J., Pichora-Fuller M.K., Gatehouse S., Stephens D., Arlinger S. . 2003. Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: Special needs of older people. Int J Audiol, 42(Suppl. 2), 92–101.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger R.A. 1988. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kvale S. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kyngäs H. 2004. Support network of adolescents with chronic disease: Adolescents’ perspective. Nurs Health Sci, 6, 287–293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laplante-Lévesque A., Pichora-Fuller M.K. & Gagné J.-P. 2006. Providing an internet-based audiological counselling programme to new hearing aid users: A qualitative study. Int J Audiol, 45, 697–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laplante-Lévesque A., Hickson L. & Worrall L. 2010. Factors influencing rehabilitation decisions of adults with acquired hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 49, 497–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laplante-Lévesque A., Knudsen L.V., Preminger J.E., Jones L., Nielsen C. . 2011. Hearing help-seeking and rehabilitation: Perspectives of adults with hearing impairment. Int J Aud.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln Y.S. 1992. Sympathetic connections between qualitative methods and health research. Qual Health Res, 2, 375–391.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln Y.S. & Guba E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lind C., Hickson L. & Erber N.P. 2006. Conversation repair and adult cochlear implantation: A qualitative case study. Cochlear Implants Int, 7, 33–48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lockey K., Jennings M.B. & Shaw L. 2010. Exploring hearing aid use in older women through narratives. Int J Audiol, 49, 542–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez K.A. & Willis D.G. 2004. Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual Health Res, 14, 726–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney J. & Goertz G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Pol Anal, 14, 227–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles M.B. & Huberman A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan D.L. 1996. Focus Groups. Annu Rev Sociol, 22, 129–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J.M. 1995. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res, 5, 147–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J.M. 2008. Confusing categories and themes. Qual Health Res, 18, 727–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton M. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Poortinga W., Bickerstaff K., Langford I., Niewöhner J. & Pidgeon N.F. 2004. The British 2001 foot and mouth crisis: A comparative study of public risk perceptions, trust, and beliefs about government policy in two communities. J Risk Res, 7, 73–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan G.W. & Bernard H.R. 2003. Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85–109.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks H. 1995. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks H., Schegloff E.A. & Jefferson G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Lang, 50, 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. 1995. Focus on qualitative methods: Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health, 18, 179–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. 2000. Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health, 23, 334–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarinci N., Worrall L. & Hickson L. 2008. The effect of hearing impairment in older people on the spouse. Int J Audiol, 47, 141–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith J.A., Osborn M. & Jarman M. 1999. Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. M. Murray & K. Chamberlain Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage. 218–240.
   Google Scholar
• Smith J.A., Flowers P. & Larkin M. 2009. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory Method and Research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Southall K., Gagné J.-P. & Jennings M.B. 2010. Stigma: A negative and a positive influence on help-seeking for adults with acquired hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 49, 804–814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starks H. & Brown Trinidad S. 2007. Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res, 17, 1372–1380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss A.L. & Corbin J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Treloar C. & Graham I.D. 2003. Multidisciplinary cross-national studies: A commentary on issues of collaboration, methodology, analysis, and publication. Qual Health Res, 13, 924–932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tye-Murray N., Spry J.L. & Mauzé E. 2009. Professionals with hearing loss: Maintaining that competitive edge. Ear Hear, 30, 475–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestergaard Knudsen L., Öberg M., Nielsen C., Naylor G. & Kramer S.E. 2010. Factors influencing help-seeking, hearing-aid uptake, hearing-aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: A review of the literature. Trends Amplif, 14, 127–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wallhagen M.I. 2010. The stigma of hearing loss. Gerontologist, 50, 66–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitzman E.A. 2000. Software and qualitative research. N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage. 803–820.
   Google Scholar
• Wengraf T. 2001. Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographical Narratives and Semi-Structured Method. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2001. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar