Cited by 3,073Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews

Open access
Boeije, Hennie·2002·Quality and Quantity

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1020909529486

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 study team cycled through multiple iterations of themes related to care setting, looking for unexpected and disconfirming evidence, consistent with the constant comparative method.

    “Consistent with best practices of the constant comparative method, 22,23 the study team cycled through multiple iterations of themes related to care setting, looking for unexpected and disconfirming evidence.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boeije, H.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Boeije, Hennie
Venue
Quality and Quantity
Published
2002-11
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
391-409
ISSN
  • 0033-5177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7845
OpenAlex
W1566718566
Cited by
3,073
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 149 · 2025: 185 · 2024: 188 · 2023: 200 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 232 · 2020: 240 · 2019: 231 · 2018: 198 · 2017: 181 · 2016: 190 · 2015: 188 · 2014: 163 · 2013: 140 · 2012: 92
FWCI
27.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality & Quantity (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
constant comparative method, grounded theory, qualitative interview analysis, multiple sclerosis, patient experience, spousal caregivers, step-by-step approach

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