Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue

Debra Roter, Richard Frankel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Increasing availability of audio and videotape of medical encounters has drawn the attention of researchers from diverse disciplines and perspectives. Unfortunately, the result has more frequently been interdisciplinary competition than collaboration. Most striking are the differences in approach between researchers applying qualitative and quantitative methods. Advocates of each of these methods have not only argued their own relative merits, but have maintained unusually critical and intellectually isolated positions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the paradigmatic perspective which promotes mutual exclusivity is in error. We present several examples of research findings which demonstrate the rich potential for cross-method research. Examples have been taken from the areas of most fruitful qualitative and quantitative research-information gathering, patient disclosure, and information-giving.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1097-1103
Number of pages7
JournalSocial Science and Medicine
Volume34
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - 1992

Fingerprint

dialogue
research method
quantitative research
quantitative method
evaluation
Research Personnel
qualitative method
qualitative research
Videotape Recording
Qualitative Research
Disclosure
Research
Evaluation
Qualitative approaches
method
Qualitative Approaches
Quantitative methods
Information gathering
Quantitative research
Research methods

Keywords

  • communication evaluation
  • doctor-patient communication
  • quantitative/qualitative evaluation of medical dialogue

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Development
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue. / Roter, Debra; Frankel, Richard.

In: Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 34, No. 10, 1992, p. 1097-1103.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0073266edef345459a744a3e9e2cabae,
title = "Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue",
abstract = "Increasing availability of audio and videotape of medical encounters has drawn the attention of researchers from diverse disciplines and perspectives. Unfortunately, the result has more frequently been interdisciplinary competition than collaboration. Most striking are the differences in approach between researchers applying qualitative and quantitative methods. Advocates of each of these methods have not only argued their own relative merits, but have maintained unusually critical and intellectually isolated positions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the paradigmatic perspective which promotes mutual exclusivity is in error. We present several examples of research findings which demonstrate the rich potential for cross-method research. Examples have been taken from the areas of most fruitful qualitative and quantitative research-information gathering, patient disclosure, and information-giving.",
keywords = "communication evaluation, doctor-patient communication, quantitative/qualitative evaluation of medical dialogue",
author = "Debra Roter and Richard Frankel",
year = "1992",
doi = "10.1016/0277-9536(92)90283-V",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "1097--1103",
journal = "Social Science and Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue

AU - Roter, Debra

AU - Frankel, Richard

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - Increasing availability of audio and videotape of medical encounters has drawn the attention of researchers from diverse disciplines and perspectives. Unfortunately, the result has more frequently been interdisciplinary competition than collaboration. Most striking are the differences in approach between researchers applying qualitative and quantitative methods. Advocates of each of these methods have not only argued their own relative merits, but have maintained unusually critical and intellectually isolated positions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the paradigmatic perspective which promotes mutual exclusivity is in error. We present several examples of research findings which demonstrate the rich potential for cross-method research. Examples have been taken from the areas of most fruitful qualitative and quantitative research-information gathering, patient disclosure, and information-giving.

AB - Increasing availability of audio and videotape of medical encounters has drawn the attention of researchers from diverse disciplines and perspectives. Unfortunately, the result has more frequently been interdisciplinary competition than collaboration. Most striking are the differences in approach between researchers applying qualitative and quantitative methods. Advocates of each of these methods have not only argued their own relative merits, but have maintained unusually critical and intellectually isolated positions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the paradigmatic perspective which promotes mutual exclusivity is in error. We present several examples of research findings which demonstrate the rich potential for cross-method research. Examples have been taken from the areas of most fruitful qualitative and quantitative research-information gathering, patient disclosure, and information-giving.

KW - communication evaluation

KW - doctor-patient communication

KW - quantitative/qualitative evaluation of medical dialogue

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026643166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026643166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90283-V

DO - 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90283-V

M3 - Article

C2 - 1641671

AN - SCOPUS:0026643166

VL - 34

SP - 1097

EP - 1103

JO - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

IS - 10

ER -