Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The purpose of this study is to compare two different Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS (CAQDAS) packages (NVivo and MAXQDA) on a specific aspect. The same data from an auto-photographic study is analyzed using the same approach to make the comparison. The comparison is not based on a data oriented evaluation, but the methodological approach used constitutes the basis for the evaluation. The criteria for the evaluation of these tools are: closeness to the data, ease of coding and memoing, and the interrelationship among the data, code and the memo which were derived from the methodological approach. The first level coding process was accomplished using Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) with two different CAQDAS packages. As for the result, in the GTM interpretation is crucial and MAXQDA supports the interpretive style better than NVivo. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101345
Elif Kuş Saillard (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: