rigor and validity in quantitative research

Reliability and validity are research specific terms that may be applied throughout scientific literature to assess many elements of research methods, designs, and outcomes however, here we are focusing specifically on their use for assessing measurement in quantitative research methodology. In these types of reviews and analyses, the quality of research methods and study instruments becomes an inclusion criterion for deciding which studies to include for analysis so that their authors can ensure rigor in their processes (Page et al., 2021). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses use critical analysis differently. In a scoping review, the results of the critical analysis are integrated and reported descriptively since they are designed to broadly encapsulate all of the research in a topic area and identify the current state of the science, rather than including only research that meets specific established quality guidelines (Munn et al., 2018). Each type of analysis or review requires a critical analysis of the methodologies used in the reviewed articles (Dodgson, 2021).

Meta-analysis takes the process of systematic review one step further by pooling the data collected and presenting aggregated summary results (Ahn & Kang, 2018). According to the Cochrane Library (under the the section heading “What is a Systemic Review?” the following is stated: it will “identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question” about-cochrane-reviews.). A systematic review has a different purpose to a scoping review. To this end, a scoping review can draw from various sources of evidence, including expert opinion and policy documents, sometimes referred to as “grey literature” (Tricco, et al., 2018). They are broad, detailed, often focused on emerging evidence, and can be used to determine whether a more rigorous systematic review would be useful (Munn et al., 2018). Scoping reviews map out the literature in a particular topic area or answer a question about a particular concept or characteristic of the literature about a particular topic.

The evidence base for lactation integrates research that cuts across multiple specialties (Dodgson, 2019) but the most common literature reviews accepted in the Journal of Human Lactation include scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Literature reviews can take many forms depending on the field of specialty and the specific purpose of the review. Critical Analysis of Reliability and Validity in Literature Reviews

Rigor and validity in quantitative research