Applications of Grounded Theory Methodology to Investigate Hearing Loss: A Methodological Qualitative Systematic Review With Developed Guidelines.
Yasmin Ali, Nicola Wright, David Charnock and 3 others
PMID 38608196WHAT IT FOUND
Most hearing loss studies using grounded theory failed to follow the method's core rules.
Many did not create new theories, lacked theoretical sampling, or had small samples. The review proposes new guidelines to help researchers apply this method correctly.
Key findings
01The majority of included studies were rated as moderate or low quality, with only four achieving a high quality score.
02Key methodological failures included a lack of theoretical sampling and small sample sizes that did not meet recommended thresholds.
03Eight studies used grounded theory merely as an analytical tool to generate themes rather than to develop a novel theory.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The GUREGT tool does not account for other qualitative rigor techniques like triangulation or member-checking, which may have undervalued some studies. The inclusion of PhD theses, which have more space to detail methods, may have skewed the quality scores higher than they would be for standard journal articles. The scoring system was an adaptation by the authors and may not perfectly reflect the original intent of the GUREGT tool.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Phonak.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that hearing loss research using grounded theory is methodologically sound or that the theories produced are robust. The review found that most studies failed to follow core principles, meaning their findings may be less trustworthy than they appear.