IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04792-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of standards for evaluating the quality of qualitative research on Olympics breakdance

Author

Listed:
  • Zhi Yang

    (Griffith University)

  • Susan Whatman

    (Griffith University)

Abstract

Since the announcement in 2018 of breakdancing’s inclusion in the 2024 Olympic program in Paris, France, by the International Olympic Committee, there has been a significant increase in qualitative research related to breakdancing. Although standards exist for evaluating qualitative research quality, these standards are not always suitable for breakdancing research. This raises questions about how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research in breakdancing scholarship and how to develop and validate evaluation standards. By following the steps of the evaluation logic, we developed 22 observable behavioral standards and a hypothesized construct map. All observable behavioral standards are divided into three dimensions: (1) writing purpose statement level features; (2) following specific style reference level features; and (3) providing evidence to support the research trustworthiness level features. We then included 30 peer-reviewed qualitative studies in the field of breakdance to conduct the Guttman analysis. In our Guttman chart, we removed 7 standards because they were ambiguous, challenging, or failed to distinguish between levels of research quality in the field. Researchers can use the remaining 15 standards to evaluate the quality of qualitative research in the field of breakdancing. Analysis also reveals the features of both high-quality and low-quality qualitative research within this field. Specifically, high-quality qualitative research is not always a linear process, and breakdance researchers usually develop iterative data collection methods based on emerging phenomena, such as by revisiting participants to gain a deeper understanding of these phenomena. This study is the first of its kind to develop and validate standards for the quality of qualitative research in the field of breakdancing.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhi Yang & Susan Whatman, 2025. "Development and validation of standards for evaluating the quality of qualitative research on Olympics breakdance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04792-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04792-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04792-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04792-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Wild, 2024. "Millions of research papers at risk of disappearing from the Internet," Nature, Nature, vol. 627(8003), pages 256-256, March.
    2. Zenobia Chan & Carmen Kan & Patrick Lee & Isabel Chan & Joyce Lam, 2012. "A systematic review of qualitative studies: patients’ experiences of preoperative communication," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5‐6), pages 812-824, March.
    3. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Majken Epstein & Marie Söderström & Maria Jirwe & Philip Tucker & Anna Dahlgren, 2020. "Sleep and fatigue in newly graduated nurses—Experiences and strategies for handling shiftwork," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1-2), pages 184-194, January.
    5. Delahais, Thomas & Ottaviani, Fiona & Berthaud, Annabelle & Clot, Hélène, 2023. "Bridging the gap between wellbeing and evaluation: Lessons from IBEST, a French experience," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katja Schubert Samuelsson & Monika Egenvall & Inga Klarin & Johan Lökk & Ulf Gunnarsson & Marie Iwarzon, 2018. "The older patient's experience of the healthcare chain and information when undergoing colorectal cancer surgery according to the enhanced recovery after surgery concept," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1580-1588, April.
    2. Mei‐Ling Lin & Chuen‐Teng Huang & Ching‐Huey Chen, 2017. "Reasons for family involvement in elective surgical decision‐making in Taiwan: a qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(13-14), pages 1969-1977, July.
    3. Potluka, Oto, 2023. "Why and how to use the quality of life as an evaluation criterion?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Natalie Williams & Georgia Griffin & Victoria Farrell & Yvonne L. Hauck, 2020. "Gaining insight into the supportive care needs of women experiencing gynaecological cancer: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9-10), pages 1684-1694, May.
    5. Elena B. Dvoryadkina & Elizaveta A. Belousova, 2023. "Ideas of well-being economy in the theories of local self-government," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 24(4), pages 107-124, January.
    6. Downes, Jenni & Gullickson, Amy M., 2022. "What does it mean for an evaluation to be ‘valid’? A critical synthesis of evaluation literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Tonje Sibbern & Vibeke Bull Sellevold & Simen A Steindal & Craig Dale & Judy Watt‐Watson & Alfhild Dihle, 2017. "Patients’ experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery: a systematic review of qualitative studies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(9-10), pages 1172-1188, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04792-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.