Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No 90: Part I

References

• Ajzen I. 2005. Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. New York: Open University Press/MaGraw Hill
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson M, Skoldberg K. 2009. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Thousand Okas: CA, SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Ary D, Jacobs L, Sorensen C, Razavieh A. 2006. Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wasdsworth
   Google Scholar
• Ashley P, Boyd B. 2006. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in environmental management. Australasian J Environ Manage 13:70–78
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson P, Pugsley L. 2005. Making sense of ethnography and medical education. Med Educ 39:228–234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aveyard H. 2010. Doing a literature review in health and social science care: A practical guide. Glasgow: The McGrawHill Companies
   Google Scholar
• Bower E, Scambler S. 2007. The contributions of qualitative research towards dental public health practice. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 35:161–9
   Google Scholar
• Brown C. 2010. Conceptualizing research. In: Aparasus R, editor. Research methods for pharmaceutical practice and policy. London: Pharmaceutical Press. pp 17–35
   Google Scholar
• Brown S. 2014. Evidence-based nursing. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning
   Google Scholar
• Buckley G. 1998. Partial truths-research papers in medical education. Med Edu 32:1–2
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane A. 1972. Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflection on health services. London: Nuffield Prvincial Hospitals Trus (original publication, 1972)
   Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. 2008. Research methods in education. London: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J. 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousands Okas: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J. 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Crotty M. 1998. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Daniel W. 2005. Biostatistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
   Google Scholar
• Denzin N, Lincoln Y. 2011. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks: SAGE. pp 1–19
   Google Scholar
• Dingwall R, Murphy E, Watson P, Greathbatch D, Parker S. 1998. Catching gold fish: quality in qualitative research. J Health Serv Res Policy 3:167–172
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erlandson D, Harris E, Skipper B, Allen S. 1993. Doing naturalistic inquiry. London: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Fereday J, Muir-Chocrane E. 2006. Demonstrating rigour using thematic analysis: Hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development [Online]. [Accessed July 2012] Available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/fereday.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gillis A, Jackson W. 2002. Research for nurses: Methods and interpretation. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein H. 1968. Longitudinal studies and the measurement of change. Statistician 18:93–117
   Google Scholar
• Griffin K, Museus S. 2011. Application of mixed-methods approaches to higher education and intersectional analyses. In: Griffin K, Museus S, editors. Using mixed -methods approaches to study intersecrionality in higher education. Ann Arbor: Wiley. pp 15–26
   Google Scholar
• Guba E. 1990. The alternative paradigm dialog. In: Guba E, editor. The Paradigm dialoge. London: Sage Publication. pp 15–27
   Google Scholar
• Halloway I, Biley F. 2011. Being a qualitative researcher. Qual Health Res 21:968–975
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris A, Mcgregor J, Perencevich E, Furuno J, Zhu J, Peterson D, Finkeistein J. 2006. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform 13:16–23
   Google Scholar
• Hart C. 2005. Doing a literature review. London. SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Hebel J, McCarter R. 2012. A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics. Bulington, MA: Jones and Bartlett
   Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Green S. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Online]. The Cochrane Collaboration. [Accessed November 2013] Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/index.htm#chapter_20/20_qualitative_research_and_cochrane_reviews.htm
   Google Scholar
• Hojat M, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine S, Isenberg G, Veloski J, Gonnella J. 2009. The devil is the third year: A longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med 84:1182–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufim D. 2003. Applying educational theories in practice. BMJ 25:213–216
   Google Scholar
• Kawulich B. 2009. The role of theory in research. In: Garner M, Wagner C, Kawulich B, editors. Teaching research methods in social sciences. Surrey: Aghgate Publishing Limited
   Google Scholar
• Kerlinger F. 1970. Foundations of behavioural research. New Yourk: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
   Google Scholar
• Kevin K. 2006. Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-based Dentistry 7:24–25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khatami S, Macentee M, Pratt D, Collins J. 2012. Clinical reasoning in dentistry: A conceptual framework for dental education. J Dent Educ 76:1116–1128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leedy P, Ormrod J. 2005. Practical research planning and design. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall
   Google Scholar
• Liehr P, Smith M. 2002. Theoretical frameworks. In: Lobiondo-Wood G, Haber J, editors. Nursing research: Methods, critical appraisal and utilization. St. Louis: Mosby. pp 107–120
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln Y, Guba E. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Lodico M, Spaulding D, Voegtle K. 2010. Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. San Faransico: John Wiley & Sons
   Google Scholar
• Marshall C, Rossman G. 2006. Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication
   Google Scholar
• Marshall I, Wolfe C, Mckevitt C. 2012. Lay perspectives on hypertension and drug adherence: systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ 344:e3953
   Google Scholar
• Mays N, Pope C. 2000. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 320:50–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McBurney D, White T. 2010. Research methods. Bamont, CA: Wadsworth
   Google Scholar
• McEwan M, Espie C, Metcalfe J. 2004. A systematic review of the contribution of qualitative research to the study of quality of life in children and adolescents with epilepsy. Seizure 13:3–14
   Google Scholar
• McInnes E, Seers K, Tutton L. 2011. Older people’s views in relation to risk of falling the need for intervention: A meta–ethnography. J Adv Nurs 67:2525–2536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam-Webster. 2013. Research [Online]. [Accessed 1 December 2013] Available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research
   Google Scholar
• Mertens D. 2010. Research and evaluation in education and psychology. London: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Moan I, Rise J. 2005. Quitting smoking: Applying and extended version of the theory of planned behaviour to predict intention and behaviour. J Appl Biobehav Res 10:39–68
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J. 2005. What is qualitative research? Qual Health Res 15:859–860
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J. 2006. Reconceptualising qualitative evidence. Qual Health Res 16:415–422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J. 2011. What is qualitative health research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors). SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. pp 401–414
   Google Scholar
• Morse J, Field P. 1995. Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Neuman W. 2003. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyan and Bacon
   Google Scholar
• Newman I, Hitchcock J. 2011. Underlying agreements between qualitative and quantitative research: the art short and tall of it all. Human Recourse Dev Rev 10:381–394
   Google Scholar
• Nieswiadomy R. Foundations of nursing research. Stamford: Appelton & Lange
   Google Scholar
• Norman G. 2002. Research in medical education: three decades of progress. BMJ 324:1560–2
   Google Scholar
• Ong B, Richardson J. 2006. The contribution of qualitative approaches to musculoskeletal research. Rheumatology 45:360–70
   Google Scholar
• Polit D, Beck C. 2014. Essentials of nursing research. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer|Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
   Google Scholar
• Reeves S, Kuper A, Hodges B. 2008. Qualitative research methodologies: Ethnography. BMJ 337:a1020
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie J, Lewis J, Cnicholls C, Ormston R. 2013. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein W, Phuong L. 2007. Ethical attitudes of nurse, physician, and unaffiliated members of institutional review boards. J Nurs Scholarship 39:75–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubib H, Rubin I. 2012. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. London: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Sclater M. 2012. Theorizing from bricolage: researching collaboration in art and design education. In: Adams J, Cochrane M, Dunne L, editors. Applying theory to educational research: An introductory approaches with case studies. Oxford: Wiley—Blackwell. pp 157–176
   Google Scholar
• Shadish E, Cook T, Campbell D. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalised casual inference. Boston: Houghoton Mifflin
   Google Scholar
• Silverman D. 2010. Doing qualitative research. London, SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Smith K. 1990. Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In: Guba E, editor. The paradigms dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. pp 167–1187
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. 1998. Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: SAGE
   Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Gruppen L. 2010. Using evaluation research to improve medical education. Clin Teach 7:192–196
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tavakol M, Murphy R, Rahemei-Madeseh M, Torabi S. 2008. The involvement of clinicians in medical education research. Qual Prim Care 16:335–40
   Google Scholar
• Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. 2012. Medical students’ understanding of empathy: a phenomenological study. Med Edu 46:306–316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor B. 2013. Mixed method research. In: Taylor B, Francis K, editors. Qualitative research in the health sciences: Methodologies, methods and processes. New York: Routledge. pp 162–176
   Google Scholar
• Toussaint L, Webb J. 2005. Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. J Soc Psychol 14:673–685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trice L, Bloom K. 2014. PICOT, problem statement, research ouestion, hypothesis. In: Boswell C, Cannon S, editors. Introduction to nursing research. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett
   Google Scholar