Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2019
Is it possible to use interpretative phenomenological analysis in research with people who have intellectual disabilities?
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rose John, Malik Kulsoom, Hirata Edward, Roughan Harry, Aston Kirsty, Larkin Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This paper examines the appropriateness of using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in research with people who have intellectual disabilities, focussing on quality.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify published studies. We assessed the quality of the studies using a bespoke framework, adapted from previous reviews, and articles on indicators of "good" IPA work.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight papers were reviewed. The studies were of varying quality: 6 (22%) papers were rated as "good" quality; 16 (57%) were "acceptable", and 6 (21%) were "poor." This ratio was comparable to that found in assessments of IPA papers in other domains, suggesting that issues of quality reflect researcher competence, rather than challenges with the population.
CONCLUSIONS: IPA can be an appropriate methodology to use with people with intellectual disabilities. We encourage researchers to develop more detailed analyses, to provide more transparency about their sampling strategies, and more detail of the characteristics of their samples.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify published studies. We assessed the quality of the studies using a bespoke framework, adapted from previous reviews, and articles on indicators of "good" IPA work.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight papers were reviewed. The studies were of varying quality: 6 (22%) papers were rated as "good" quality; 16 (57%) were "acceptable", and 6 (21%) were "poor." This ratio was comparable to that found in assessments of IPA papers in other domains, suggesting that issues of quality reflect researcher competence, rather than challenges with the population.
CONCLUSIONS: IPA can be an appropriate methodology to use with people with intellectual disabilities. We encourage researchers to develop more detailed analyses, to provide more transparency about their sampling strategies, and more detail of the characteristics of their samples.