The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Abstract
This article examines concepts of the trustworthiness, or credibility, of qualitative research. Following a “researcher-as-instrument,” or self-reflective, statement, the paradigmatic underpinnings of various criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research are explored, setting the stage for a discussion of more transcendent standards (those not associated with specific paradigms) for conducting quality research: social validity, subjectivity and reflexivity, adequacy of data, and adequacy of interpretation. Finally, current guidelines for writing and publishing qualitative research are reviewed, and strategies for conducting and writing qualitative research reports are suggested. Qualitative research, ensuing from a variety of disciplines, paradigms, and epistemologies, embraces multiple standards of quality, known variously as validity, credibility, rigor ,o rtrustworthiness. In addition to some standards that may be thought of as somewhat universal across disciplines and paradigms, the “goodness” (Morrow & Smith, 2000) of qualitative inquiry is assessed on the basis of the paradigmatic underpinnings of the research and the standards of the discipline. Thus, a grounded theory study or a consensual qualitative research investigation in counseling psychology that is rooted in a postpositivist or constructivist/interpretivist paradigm will look quite different from a critical ethnography in education; and the standards appropriate for evaluating these studies will vary accordingly. I begin this article by addressing the paradigmatic underpinnings of trustworthiness or rigor in qualitative research. Next, I discuss central topics related to trustworthiness or validity that span paradigms and may be thought of as relevant across most research designs. I then provide an overview of guidelines that have been suggested for evaluating qualitative research, particularly in psychology. Finally, I offer recommendations for enhancing the quality of qualitative research in counseling psychology and suggest strategies for writing and publishing. First, however, in keeping with the standard of reflexivity as a way for researchers to inform their audiences about their perspectives as well as to manage their subjectivities, I describe my own assumptions about qualitative research methodology and quality.
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
“In short, grounded theorists are building the kind of 'trustworthiness,' of their research that counseling psychologists Morrow (2005) and Williams and Morrow (2009) rightly argue is imperative to achieve in research practice.”
From The pursuit of quality in grounded theory (2021) · cites this paper as Morrow (2005)
In the citing paper
“While recognising that the analysis is a co-construction of the participants' reality, we strived to minimize researcher bias [47].”
From Helpful and hindering factors for remission in dysthymia and panic disorder at 9-year follow-up: A mixed methods study (2008) · cites this paper as [47]
Citations
Cites
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,637
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
(1990) · Cited by 24,217
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
Ellis, D. J. (1990) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/0268-4012(90)90041-p · Cited by 17,943
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1993) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,625
Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.)
Sharp, C. (2003) · Evaluation Journal of Australasia · doi:10.1177/1035719x0300300213 · Cited by 14,982
(1994) · Cited by 13,126
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Erickson, 1986, Qualitative methods in research on teaching., 119
- Glaser, 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
- Jackson, 1990, Looking for trouble: On the place of the ordinary in educational studies.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,003 of 1,003
Olofsson, M. E., Vrabel, K. R., Hoffart, A., & Oddli, H. W. (2022) · Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00566-1 · Cited by 11
Mellergård, E., Johnsson, P., & Eek, F. (2021) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2021.100384 · Cited by 10
“However, a detailed chronology of research activities and processes, such as emerging themes, was kept during the work with the present study, ensuring that the process through which the findings were derived may to some extent be repeatable (Morrow, 2005).”
BackgroundFinding Meaning After Same-Sex Partner Abuse: A Content Analysis of Experiences of Men With HIV
E.Valentine, S., Bankoff, S. M., & Pantalone, D. W. (2013) · Violence and Victims · doi:10.1891/0886-6708.28.1.161 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Morrow, S. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Utah (US)
- Corresponding author
- Morrow, Susan L.
- ORCID
- Morrow, Susan L.
- Venue
- Journal of Counseling Psychology
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 250-260
- ISSN
- 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2017532745
- Cited by
- 3,199
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 142 · 2025: 203 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 197 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 255 · 2020: 226 · 2019: 192 · 2018: 227 · 2017: 189 · 2016: 192 · 2015: 193 · 2014: 178 · 2013: 150 · 2012: 109
- FWCI
- 162.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Keywords
- trustworthiness, credibility, qualitative research quality, research paradigms, reflexivity, subjectivity, social validity, qualitative research reporting, constructivist approach, interpretivism, counseling psychology research
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