![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Background: In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in qualitative research in the field of aphasia. Knowledge of patterns and trends in this body of research would inform future research. However, there is little information about the characteristics or patterns of qualitative research in aphasia.
Aims: In order to describe qualitative research in aphasia, a review of the aphasia literature from 1993 to 2013 was undertaken. Studies were identified using a variety of search terms for the following electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and ComDisDome. A total of 78 articles that met the review criteria were identified and data were extracted in the following areas: topic of study, participants, data collection, research design and data analysis.
Main Contribution: Publication of qualitative research in aphasia has increased since 1993 and contributed to an important database regarding phenomena associated with life with aphasia. The most prevalent research topics relate to the experience of aphasia, activities or participation of people with aphasia, perceptions of intervention or outcomes, perceived goals or needs and environmental factors. People with aphasia were the most frequent participants. A majority of studies employed generic qualitative methods independent of a traditional qualitative philosophy. Interview was the most prevalent data collection method, and few studies reported methods of determining if the amount of data were sufficient to meet the study aims. The depth of interpretation (level of analysis) varied across studies from concrete category listings to higher-level explanatory themes.
Conclusions: Despite the variation across studies, identified trends provided valuable information and raised interesting questions for debate. Questions are posed for future consideration such as “should aphasia researchers more frequently apply methods from established qualitative traditions?” and “should aphasia research include a wider variety of data collection methods?” Questions were raised regarding terminology (e.g., themes versus categories) and depth of interpretation in qualitative studies. The findings also provide concrete direction; for example, qualitative researchers might improve the reporting of methods for determining data sufficiency.