The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: the plot thickens
Open accessAbstract
Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: the plot thickens Qualitative research is increasingly recognized and valued and its unique place in nursing research is highlighted by many. Despite this, some nurse researchers continue to raise epistemological issues about the problems of objectivity and the validity of qualitative research findings. This paper explores the issues relating to the representativeness or credibility of qualitative research findings. It therefore critiques the existing distinct philosophical and methodological positions concerning the trustworthiness of qualitative research findings, which are described as follows: quantitative studies should be judged using the same criteria and terminology as quanitative studies; it is impossible, in a meaningful way, for any criteria to be used to judge qualitative studies; qualitative studies should be judged using criteria that are developed for and fit the qualitative paradigm; and the credibility of qualitative research findings could be established by testing out the emerging theory by means of conducting a deductive quantitative study. The authors conclude by providing some guidelines for establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research
Burnard, P. (1991) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-y · Cited by 2,510
Cavanagh, S. (1997) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr.4.3.5.s2 · Cited by 1,133
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- AltheideD.L.&JohnsonJ.M.(1994)Criteria for assessing interpretative validity in qualitative research. InHandbook of Qualitative Research(Denzin N. & Lincoln Y.S. eds) Sage London pp. 485–499.
- Appleton J.V., 1995, Analysing qualitative interview data: addressing issues of validity and reliability, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 999, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb02653.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb00004.x · DOI
- 10.1163/156916293X00017 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0260-6917(97)80136-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0260-6917(97)80137-2 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.15217.x · DOI · Paper page
- BennerP.(1984)From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Practice. Addison‐Wesley New York. · DOI · Paper page
- BennerP.&WrubelJ.(1989)The Primacy of Caring: Stress and Coping in Health and Illness. Addison Wesley New York.
- BergumV.(1991)Being a phenomenological researcher. InQualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue(Morse J.M. ed.) Sage Newbury Park California pp. 55–71. · DOI
- BrinkP.J.(1991)Issues of reliability and validity. InQualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue(Morse J.M. ed.) Sage Newbury Park California pp. 164–186. · DOI
- 10.1097/00012272-197810000-00004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7748/mhp.1.9.28.s15 · DOI
- 10.7748/nr1997.04.4.3.5.c5869 · DOI
- ChinnP.&KramerM.K.(1995)Theory and Nursing: A Systematic Approach4th edn. CV Mosby St Louis.
- CliffordJ.&MarcusG.(1986)Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press Berkley.
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb02639.x · DOI
- 10.12968/bjon.1997.6.17.969 · DOI
- DenzinN.&LincolnY.S.(1994)Introduction: entering the field of qualitative enquiry. InHandbook of Qualitative Research(Denzin N. & Lincoln Y.S. eds) Sage London pp. 1–18.
- HammersleyM.(1992)What’s Wrong with Ethnography?Routledge London.
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01085.x · DOI · Paper page
- LeiningerM.(1994)Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. InCritical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods(Morse J. ed.) Sage Thousand Oaks California pp. 95–115.
- McKennaH.(1997)Nursing Theories and Models. Routledge London.
- MeleisA.I.(1991)Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress2nd edn. Lippincott Philadelphia.
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1982.tb00248.x · DOI
- MorseJ.(1991)Qualitative nursing research: a free for all?InQualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue2nd edn (Morse J. ed.) Sage Newbury Park California pp. 14–22. · DOI
- MunhallP.L.&BoydC.O.(1993)Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective2nd edn. National League for Nursing Press New York.
- 10.12968/bjon.1995.4.10.587 · DOI
- 10.12968/bjon.1995.4.14.829 · DOI
- 10.7748/nr.2.2.41.s6 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061123.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb02374.x · DOI
- 10.7748/nr1997.04.4.3.17.c5870 · DOI
- Turner B., 1981, Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory, Quality and Control, 15, 225
- 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.22040791.x · DOI
Cited by
S., N. L. (2017) · doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 · Cited by 14,051
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x · Cited by 1,601
Methodological issues in grounded theory
Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01430.x · Cited by 642
Olofsson, B., & Jacobsson, L. (2001) · Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2850.2001.00404.x · Cited by 165
Riazi, A. M., Rezvani, R., & Ghanbar, H. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100065 · Cited by 79
The experience of therapeutic support groups by siblings of children with cancer.
(2010) · PubMed · Cited by 39
Joyce, E., Tai, S., Gebbia, P., & Mansell, W. (2017) · Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · doi:10.1002/cpp.2040 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 374-380
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2115375428
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 47.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
