Cited by 829Evaluation and Performance AssessmentQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and Methods

Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation

Open access
Schwandt, Thomas A., Lincoln, Yvonna S., Guba, Egon G.·2007·New Directions for Evaluation

Abstract

This chapter situates Guba and Lincoln's chapter within the broad philosophical debate about the justifiability of interpretations. The emergence of a new paradigm of inquiry (naturalistic) has, unsurprisingly enough, led to a demand for rigorous criteria that meet traditional standards of inquiry. Two sets are suggested, one of which, the “trustworthiness” criteria, parallels conventional criteria, while the second, “ authenticity” criteria, is implied directly by new paradigm assumptions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ev.223

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The trustworthiness of the data was ensured by applying four criteria given by Lincoln and Guba (2007), including credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability of data.

    “The trustworthiness of the data was ensured by applying four criteria given by Lincoln and Guba (2007), including credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability of data [31].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991.
  2. Rouse, J. Knowledge and Power. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987. References
  3. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. "Do Inquiry Paradigms Imply Inquiry Methodologies?" In D. L. Fetterman (Ed.), The Silent Scientific Revolution. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, in press.
  4. House, E. R. "Justice in Evaluation." In G. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, no. 1. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
New Directions for Evaluation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-05-29
Volume
2007
Issue
114
Pages
11-25
ISSN
  • 1097-6736 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-875X
OpenAlex
W2020416468
Cited by
829
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
New Directions for Evaluation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
naturalistic assessment, trustworthiness, authenticity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review