The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“the guideline for which was prepared using a theory-based and rule-guided Notes: n = number, Min/Max = scale range of answers, M = means, SD = standard deviations, α = Cronbach's Alpha method (Gläser & Laudel, 2010).”
From Online learning readiness and attitudes towards gaming in gamified online learning – a mixed methods case study (2018) · cites this paper as Gläser & Laudel, 2010
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conducting content‐analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management
Seuring, S. A., & Gold, S. (2012) · Supply Chain Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/13598541211258609 · Cited by 1,352
Das Experteninterview — konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_23 · Cited by 551
Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse: Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Begrifflichkeiten
Schreier, M. (2013) · Forum qualitative Sozialforschung · doi:10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043 · Cited by 515
Digital entrepreneurship: Innovative business models for the sharing economy
Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S., & Giselbrecht, C. (2017) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/caim.12227 · Cited by 356
Recent applications of big data analytics in railway transportation systems: A survey
Ghofrani, F., He, Q., Goverde, R. M. P., & Liu, X. (2018) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2018.03.010 · Cited by 319
“Apart from the field of supply chain management, Gläser and Laudel (2010) took Mayring’s method as a starting point for developing their own technique for analyzing expert interviews in social science.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Gläser, J., & Laudel, G.
- Venue
- VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks
- Publisher
- VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
- Published
- 2010
- OpenAlex
- W2490721398
- Cited by
- 1,586
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 330 · 2022: 133 · 2021: 134 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 48.56
- Type
- book
- Language
- de
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- expert interviews, qualitative content analysis, interview analysis, expert knowledge
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
