Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 935

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience

Brod, Meryl, Tesler, Laura E., Christensen, Torsten L.·2009·Quality of Life Research
DOI 10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Nunally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed., p. 104). McGraw-Hill: New York.
  2. Leidy, N., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes. Content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collection and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  4. Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2004). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 1–23). London: SAGE.
  5. Theobald, S., & Nhlema-Simwaka, B. (2008). The research, policy and practice interface: Reflections on using applied social research to promote equity in health in Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 760–770. · DOI
  6. Friedland, G. H. (2006). HIV medication adherence: The intersection of biomedical, biobehavioral, and social science research and clinical practice. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 43(Suppl 1), 53–59.
  7. Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). British Medical Journal, 315, 740–743. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Firestone, W. A., & Herriott, R. E. (1983). The formalization of qualitative research: An adaptation of “soft science” to the policy world. Evaluation Review, 7, 437–466. · DOI
  9. Belue, R., Taylor-Richardson, K. D., Lin, J., Rivera, A. T., & Grandison, D. (2006). African Americans and participation in clinical trials: Differences in beliefs and attitudes by gender. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 27, 498–505. · DOI
  10. Featherstone, K., & Donavan, J. L. (1998). Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 317, 1177–1180. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Lawton, J., Fox, A., Fox, C., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2003). Participating in the United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS): A qualitative study of patients’ experiences. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 394–398.
  12. Madsen, S. M., Holm, S., & Riis, P. (2009). Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: An interview study using a grounded theory approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 234–240. · DOI
  13. Marsden, J., & Bradburn, J. (2004). Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial. Health Expectations, 7, 6–17. · DOI
  14. Paterniti, D. A., Chen, M. S., Chiechi, C., Beckett, L. A., Horan, N., Turrell, C., et al. (2005). Asian Americans and cancer clinical trials: A mixed-methods approach to understanding awareness and experience. Cancer Supplement, 104(12), 3015–3024. · DOI
  15. Silberfeld, M., Rueda, S., Krahn, M., & Naglie, G. (2002). Content validity for dementia of three generic preference based health related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 11, 71–79. · DOI
  16. Waters, E., Maher, E., Salmon, L., Reddihough, D., & Boyd, R. (2005). Development of a condition-specific measure of quality of life for children with cerebral palsy: Empirical thematic data reported by parents and children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(2), 127–135. · DOI
  17. Wieringa, N. F., Peschar, J. L., Denig, P., de Graeff, P. A., & Vos, R. (2003). Connecting pre-marketing clinical research and medical practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(1), 202–219. · doi:10.1017/s0266462303000199
  18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press.
  19. Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 311–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  20. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  22. Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2006). Focus groups (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  24. Quine, S., & Cameron, I. (1995). The use of focus groups with the disabled elderly. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 454–462. · doi:10.1177/104973239500500406
  25. Koppelman, N., & Bourjolly, J. (2001). Conducting focus groups with women with severe psychiatric disabilities: A methodological overview. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 25(2), 142–151. · doi:10.1037/h0095031
  26. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311, 299–302. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Greenbaum, T. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  30. Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique, in theory? In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 23–44). New York: Wiley-IEEE. · DOI
  31. Beatty, P. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 45–66). New York: Wiley-IEEE. · DOI
  32. Poland, B. (2003). Transcription quality. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267–288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  33. Bernard, H. R. (2005). Research methods in anthropology (4th ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
  34. St John, W., & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(4), 393–397. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Jennings, B. (2007). Qualitative analysis: A case of software or ‘peopleware?’. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 483–484. · DOI
  36. Morison, M., & Moir, J. (1998). The role of computer software in the analysis of qualitative data: Efficient clerk, research assistant or Trojan horse? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 106–116. · DOI
  37. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 219–262). London: Sage.
  38. Hruschka, D., Schwartz, D., St John, D., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R., & Carey, J. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 307–331. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscomb, J., Teschendorf, B., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S66–S75. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  41. Acquadro, C., Conway, C., Wolf, B., Anfray, C., Hareendran, A., Mear, I., et al. (2008). Development of a standardized classification system for the translations of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Quality of Life Newsletter, 39, 5.
  42. Krueger, R. (1995). The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 524–530. · DOI
  43. Revicki, D. A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Weinfurt, K. (2007). Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: The PRO evidence dossier. Quality of Life Research, 16, 717–723. · DOI

Cited by

See all 935

Metadata

Authors
Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-09-27
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
1263-1278
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
DOI
10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9
OpenAlex
W2089355683
Cited by
935
References
10
FWCI
87.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9
The paper
Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.