HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jensen, G. M Articles by Hack, L. M Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jensen, G. M Articles by Hack, L. M Related Collections Clinical Competence Professional Issues Clinical Decision Making Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Author Response

Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the full text and any section headings.

	Introduction

 
We want to thank our colleagues, Dr Bartlett, Dr Mitchell, and Dr Swaine for their thoughtful, provocative responses to our article. Each commentator addressed different areas for their comments and critique that will be the focus of our discussion here. In addition, all 3 commentators saw our detailed methodology as a major strength of the research that will be helpful for other qualitative researchers. We thank them for their compliments. We also want to acknowledge that the original manuscript reviewers for Physical Therapy raised numerous questions for the qualitative methods used. It is our hope that as manuscript reviewers, as well as readers, become increasingly familiar with the rigor inherent in good qualitative research, the explanation of qualitative methods will be allowed to parallel the current expectations for presentation of quantitative methods.

Dr Bartlett and Dr Mitchell raise the question of generalizability of results. In our report, we used the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?