Q-methodology is a technique incorporating the benefits of both qualitative and quantitative research. Q-method involves Q-sorting, a method of data collection and factor analysis, to assess subjective (qualitative) information. The use of Q-sorting and factor analysis has often resulted in the misconception that Q-methodology involves psychometric or quantitative assessment, although Q as a methodology actually enables the systematic assessment of qualitative data. Misconceptions regarding Q have resulted in a heterogeneous collection of Q-applications in the extant literature, which has obscured the fundamental principles of Q-methodology. The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of Q-based research to investigate the criteria researchers have used to develop Q-studies. Published research studies between January 2008 and December 2008 that employed Q-techniques and methodology were assessed. Data were extracted and synthesized through the development and use of the Assessment and Review Instrument for Q-methodology (ARIQ). Fourteen research studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. The Q-methodological studies were disparate in their application of terminology, instrument development, and factor analysis, although data extraction and synthesis processes revealed two types of studies: those which aimed to apply conventional Q-methodology and those which applied variations of Q-techniques. It is concluded that variations of Q-technique and its methodology are unavoidable. However, this does not obviate the need for researchers to explicitly state their rationale for decisions to deviate from conventional Q-methodology if they are to produce demonstrably valid research. The review instrument (ARIQ) developed for this review will facilitate this end.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dziopa et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: