The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity
Abstract
This article provides an empirical review and synthesis of published studies that have used content-analysis methods. Harold Kassarjian's critical guidelines for content-analysis research were used to examine the methods employed in 128 studies. The guidelines were expanded by providing an empirical investigation of multiple dimensions of objectivity. Reliability issues were also assessed by examining factors central to the replication and interjudge coefficient calculations. The findings indicate a general need for improvement in the application of content-analysis methods. Suggestions for calculating reliability coefficients and for improving the objectivity and reliability of research are offered.
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
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments
Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172601 · Cited by 1,575
Cited by
Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919899220 · Cited by 3,871
“Some researchers, whose analytic approaches prioritize increasing the coding frame’s external objectivity, recommend coders should be people external to the research team who had no role in designing the coding frame (Kolbe & Burnett, 1991).”
BackgroundMethodContent Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x · Cited by 3,068
Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579910270138 · Cited by 1,425
Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.55 · Cited by 1,316
The Critical Incident Technique in Service Research
Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670504266138 · Cited by 1,078
Metadata
- Authors
- Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 243
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2035040004
- Cited by
- 1,520
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/209256
- The paper
- Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/209256
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.
