Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility analysis of the value of Q method in the classification and understanding of expert experience

  • Academic Exploration
  • Published:
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Q method, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, refers to the qualitative analysis of Q-sorts based on quantitative techniques. It is used to research individual subjective experience, analyzing consensus and divergence to identify and categorize subjects’ viewpoints. The sorting process is completely performed by the subjects, independent of study researchers. The Q method in medical research has been applied in many fields, including nursing care, clinical studies, doctor and patient’s perceptions, health evaluation and decision making. The authors used the Q method to research Chinese medicine (CM) group decision making, exploring its practical feasibility in this important field. Four primary domains are addressed: (1) integration of expert opinion; (2) expert classification; (3) ascertaining the entire viewpoint orientation of a certain type of expert; and (4) comparison of expert opinion using an additional perspective. The essence of the Q method caters to the CM thinking model and should be introduced into CM and explored more deeply.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuhne N, Abernot Y, Camus D. Q-sort, a useful research method in care in cases of psychiatric nursing of the aged. Rech Soins Infirm 2008;95:46–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yeun E. Attitudes of elderly Korean patients toward death and dying: an application of Q-methodology. Int J Nurs Study 2005;42:871–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boffa DP, Pawola LM. Identification and conceptualization of nurse super users. J Health Inf Manag 2006;20(4):60–68.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Scharf L, Caley L. Patients’, nurses’, and physicians’ perceptions of nurses’ caring behaviors. Nurs Connect 1993;6:3–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Risdon A, Eccleston C, Crombez G, McCracken L. How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:375–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goto K, Tiffany J, Pelto G, Pelletier D. Use of Q method to analyze divergent perspectives on participatory action research as a strategy for HIV/AIDS prevention among Caribbean youth. AIDS Educ Prev 2008;20:301–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prateepko T, Chongsuvivatwong V. Patterns of perception toward influenza pandemic among the front-line responsible health personnel in southern Thailand: a Q method approach. BMC Public Health 2009;28:161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Farrimond H, Joffe H, Stenner P. A Q-methodological study of smoking identities. Psychol Health 2010;22(3):1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  9. van Exel NJ, de Graaf G, Brouwer WB. “Everyone dies, so you might as well have fun!” Attitudes of Dutch youths about their health lifestyle. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:2628–2639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tielen M, van Staa AL, Jedeloo S, van Exel NJ, Weimar W. Q-methodology to identify young adult renal transplant recipients at risk for non-adherence. Transplantation 2008;85:700–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bullington P, Pawola L, Walker R, Valenta A, Briars L, John E. Identification of medication non-adherence factors in adolescent transplant patients: the patient’s viewpoint. Pediatr Transplant 2007;11:914–921.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Samuels JG, Fetzer S. Development of the Samuels Scale to rate pain management documentation. Pain Manag Nurs 2008;9:166–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lai JS, Kupst MJ, Cella D, Brown SR, Peterman A, Goldman S. Using Q-methodology to understand perceived fatigue reported by adolescents with cancer. Psychooncology 2007;16:437–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dennis KE, Tomoyasu N, McCrone SH, Goldberg AP, Bunyard L, Qi BB. Self-efficacy targeted treatments for weight loss in postmenopausal women. Sch Inq Nurs Pract 2001;15:259–276.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ Manag 2001;27:435–450.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong W, Eiser AR, Mrtek RG, Heckerling PS. Byperson factor analysis in clinical ethical decision making: Q method in end-of-life care decisions. Am J Bioeth 2004;4(3):W8–W22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morecroft C, Cantrill J, Tully MP. Individual patient’s preferences for hypertension management: a Q-methodological approach. Patient Educ Couns 2006;61:354–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morecroft C, Cantrill J, Tully M. Patients’ and general practitioners’ views of what constitutes appropriate hypertension management. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(2):91–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ryan CJ, Zerwic JJ. Knowledge of symptom clusters among adults at risk for acute myocardial infarction. Nurs Res 2004;53:363–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jedeloo S, van Staa A, Latour JM, van Exel NJ. Preferences for health care and self-management among Dutch adolescents with chronic conditions: a Q-methodological investigation. Int J Nurs Study 2010;47:593–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dudley R, Siitarinen J, James I, Dodgson G. What do people with psychosis think caused their psychosis? A Q method study. Behav Cogn Psychother 2009;37:11–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Watkins RE, Plant AJ. Clinic staff perceptions of tuberculosis treatment delivery in Bali. Patient Educ Couns 2005;56:340–348.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker RM. Economic rat ional i ty and heal th and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:2341–2353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallagher K, Porock D. The use of interviews in Q method: card content analysis. Nurs Res 2010;59:295–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q method. Health Educ Res 2005;20:206–213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Akhtar-Danesh N, Baumann A, Cordingley L. Q-methodology in nursing research: a promising method for the study of subjectivity. West J Nurs Res 2008;30:759–773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barker JH. Q-methodology: an alternative approach to research in nurse education. Nurs Educ Today 2008;28:917–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Guzman J, Hayden J, Furlan AD, Cassidy JD, Loisel P, Flannery J, et al. Key factors in back disability prevention: a consensus panel on their impact and modifiability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:807–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lister M, Gardner D. Engaging hard to engage clients: a Q methodological study involving clinical psychologists. Psychol Psychother 2006;79:419–443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Herron-Marx S, Williams A, Hicks C. A Q method study of women’s experience of enduring postnatal perineal and pelvic floor morbidity. Midwifery 2007;23:322–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu MY, Peng J, Jiang M, Lu AP. Preliminary research on application of Q method in studying experiences of Chinese medicine. Chin J Integr Tradit West Med (Chin) 2010;30:1101–1104.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Basic Theory, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, (100700), China

    Meng-yu Liu  (刘孟宇), Ai-ping Lu  (吕爱平) & Xue-jie Han  (韩学杰)

  2. Guan’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, (100053), China

    Yong Li  (李 勇)

Authors
  1. Meng-yu Liu  (刘孟宇)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yong Li  (李 勇)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ai-ping Lu  (吕爱平)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xue-jie Han  (韩学杰)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ai-ping Lu  (吕爱平) or Xue-jie Han  (韩学杰).

Additional information

Supported by the Fund from China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (No. Z02110)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, My., Li, Y., Lu, Ap. et al. Feasibility analysis of the value of Q method in the classification and understanding of expert experience. Chin. J. Integr. Med. 19, 869–873 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-012-1174-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-012-1174-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation