Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,299

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited

Sandelowski, Margarete·1993·Advances in Nursing Science
DOI 10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Issues are raised by the persistent concern with achieving rigor in qualitative research, including the rigidity that often characterizes the search for validity in qualitative work and the threat to validity that the search for reliability may pose. Member validation is highlighted as a technique that exemplifies not only the practical, but also the profoundly theoretical, representational, and even moral problems raised by all procedures aimed at ensuring the trustworthiness of qualitative work.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sandelowski, M.
Venue
Advances in Nursing Science
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1993-12
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
1-8
ISSN
0161-9268 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002
OpenAlex
W2051917704
Cited by
1,299
References
0
FWCI
29.37
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

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.