Quantitative and qualitative analyses are complementary methods that can be combined in surveys to produce comprehensive results. Thus, quantitative data give a person numbers to validate the general points of their survey. Qualitative data provide the details to understand their full implications in depth. To get the best results from using these two methods in research, it is essential to understand the differences between them. This paper will present two studies, qualitative and quantitative, on quality of life after spinal cord injury. Whether a patient fully or partially recovers depends on the severity of the injury, the presence of spinal cord injury, and the timing of how quickly the patient sought care. Unfortunately, with severe injuries, the chances of a patient making a full recovery are meager, and in the worst case, disability awaits him or her.
The first article, “Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualization, measurement, and research findings,” presents a quantitative approach to research on this topic. This article was written by Marcel Dijkers in 2005 and was published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. The second article I would like to review is entitled “Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings” and uses a qualitative research method. It was written in 2007 by K. Whalley Hammell and published in a journal called Spinal Cord. The research question of the quantitative article focuses on examining three different approaches to conceptualizing the quality of life (QoL) parameter (Dijkers, 2005). These approaches include QoL as subjective well-being, achievement, and utility. Researchers argue that many approaches to measuring QoL have not been validated for a group of people experiencing severe spinal cord injury, and their clinical application has many problems. The qualitative research question identifies and compares factors that contribute to or hinder dignity after spinal cord injury.
Thus, it may be noted that the difference in the questions is that the quantitative examines the definition and criteria for quality of life itself, while the qualitative examines the factors that affect this concept. The research question depends directly on the type of research, as it determines whether the question is practical or theoretical. The question also affects the definition of variables in the study, as a qualitative question involves interpreting existing variables and a quantitative question involves exploring new ones. Generalizability in research also plays a vital role in research. Qualitative studies resort to generalization to interpret the results, while quantitative studies, on the contrary, avoid it to ensure the accuracy of the data.
Research questions can also be submitted in PICO format for better understanding. The word PICO is a mnemonic formed from the elements of a clinical research question-patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome. The PICO process begins with a case scenario, and the question is formulated to elicit an answer. The question Marcel Dijkers posed in the quantitative study is to determine which approach to conceptualizing QoL is most appropriate (Dijkers, 2005). The patients, in this case, are spinal cord injury survivors, as it is their quality of life that is in question. The intervention defines the quality of life and establishes a criterion for measuring it. The control is the fullest possible disclosure of the patients’ needs to one of the conceptualization approaches, and the outcome is the determination of the most appropriate approach.
A similar pattern can be used to formulate the research objective for the qualitative study presented by K. Whalley Hammell. It is to summarize the factors that contribute to or hinder a fulfilling life after a spinal cord injury. As in the first study, the patients, in this case, are survivors of spinal cord injury. The intervention is a complete and meaningful life for each of these patients. The comparison is the factors that prevent patients from living fulfilling lives (Whalley Hammell, 2007). The result will be the identification and summation of factors that contribute to or hinder the wholesome life of the group being studied.
The research questions asked in both papers have potential sources. The authors of the papers did not indicate them in their articles, but one can assume that they were intentional. A potential source of the quantitative research question is inaccuracies in the medical definition of quality of life. Some criteria are inappropriate for all patient groups and cannot be applied to baseline cases. This is why the definition of quality of life for specific patient groups, such as spinal cord injury survivors, needs to be investigated. A potential source of a research question for qualitative research could be the disordered diversity of factors affecting the quality of life. For example, many researchers identify different factors, but they do not fit into one system. Therefore, it is essential to conduct qualitative research with a literature review to summarize and systematize the data.
To summarize, both studies are necessary for their field and methodology. Quantitative research introduces its own variables and explores a practical question. In contrast, qualitative research uses the existing database and systematizes it. Sources for research questions can be various inaccuracies in scientific definitions of concepts. Both studies reviewed in this paper are very informative and contribute significantly to the study of quality of life for spinal cord injury survivors.
References
Dijkers, M. (2005). Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualization, measurement, and research findings. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 42(1), 87–110. Web.
Whalley Hammell, K. (2007). Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Spinal Cord 45(1), 124–139. Web.