Cited by 197Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Using multiple coders to enhance qualitative analysis: The case of interviews with consumers of drug treatment

Berends, Lynda, Johnston, Jennifer·2005·Addiction Research & Theory

Abstract

This article describes strategies used to support a systematic, inductive analysis of interviews with consumers of drug treatment. Data analysis was based on phenomenology and grounded theory. A coding system was developed, with a codebook to explicate the system. The codebook comprised the code address, mnemonic and full name, the code definition and when it should be applied, as well as text examples. A multi-disciplinary coding team was formed, with individuals from research, clinical and service use backgrounds. Challenges in the team approach included the different skill levels brought to the task, resource needs across multiple coders, and time demands on team members. Benefits rested in the inclusion of multiple perspectives in researcher backgrounds and in the opportunities to discuss coding disagreements and refine the coding system. Having two primary coders reduced flexibility in the iterative process of coding analysis, particularly interpretive and pattern coding. The codebook was useful for coding and writing findings. The codebook structure could be applied to other projects and used as a comparison point during analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16066350500102237

Cites

3 of 3 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 analysis followed thematic analysis, with two authors coding transcriptions independently and combining the code system collaboratively.

    “The analysis itself followed the procedure of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Here, two authors coded the transcriptions independent of each other using MAXQDA 1 , and combined the resulting code system collaboratively (Berends and Johnston, 2005).”
  • The authors analyzed the transcribed interviews following the inductive approach of thematic analysis and undertook coding collaboratively.

    “After transcribing the recorded interviews, we analyzed them following the inductive approach of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The authors undertook the coding of the interview material collaboratively (Berends and Johnston, 2005).”
  • Using multiple coders helped exclude subjective influences.

    “Regarding the limitations, we have tried our best to exclude subjective influences by, e.g., using multiple coders (Berends and Johnston, 2005).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berends, L., & Johnston, J.
Corresponding author
Berends, Lynda
Venue
Addiction Research & Theory
Published
2005-08
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
373-381
ISSN
  • 1058-6989 (ISSN-L)
  • 1606-6359
  • 1476-7392
OpenAlex
W2172271285
Cited by
197
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Addiction Research & Theory (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
qualitative coding, codebook generation, phenomenology, grounded theory, interdisciplinary research teams, interview analysis, addiction treatment

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