The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhancing Rigor in Qualitative Description
Abstract
Qualitative description has generally been viewed as the "poor cousin" to more developed qualitative methods, such as grounded theory. As such, little has been written about rigor in qualitative description, and researchers lack a navigational map to guide them and facilitate decision making. The novice, in particular, can be faced with numerous challenges and uncertainties. Using an incontinence project as a case study, the authors describe the issues that arose within a qualitative descriptive study and approaches used to maintain rigor. The overall credibility of the study depended on the researcher's ability to capture an insider (emic) perspective and to represent that perspective accurately. Strategies to enhance rigor included flexible yet systematic sampling, ensuring participants had the freedom to speak, ensuring accurate transcription and data-driven coding, and on-going attention to context.
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
Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues
Downe‐Wamboldt, B. (1992) · Health Care for Women International · doi:10.1080/07399339209516006 · Cited by 2,682
Validity in qualitative research
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973201129119299 · Cited by 2,144
Interpretive description: A noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge
Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & MacDonald-Emes, J. (1997) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199704)20:2<169::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-i · Cited by 1,720
Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited
Sandelowski, M. (1993) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002 · Cited by 1,299
Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research
Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973200129118453 · Cited by 1,013
Evaluating Interpretive Inquiry: Reviewing the Validity Debate and Opening the Dialogue
Angen, M. J. (2000) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973200129118516 · Cited by 998
Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy
McLafferty, I. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x · Cited by 798
Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x · Cited by 616
The use of focus group methodology — with selected examples from sexual health research
Robinson, N. (1999) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00966.x · Cited by 360
Maximizing results with focus groups: Moderator and analysis issues
Morrison-Beedy, D., Côté-Arsenault, D., & Feinstein, N. F. (2001) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1053/apnr.2001.21081 · Cited by 207
Cited by
Qualitative description – the poor cousin of health research?
Neergaard, M. A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R. S., & Sondergaard, J. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-52 · Cited by 2,072
Bressington, D. T., Wong, W.-K., Lam, K. K. C., & Chien, W. T. (2018) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2017.09.019 · Cited by 105
Empowering Patients with Persistent Pain Using an Internet-based Self-Management Program
Wilson, M., Roll, J. M., Corbett, C., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2015) · Pain Management Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2014.09.009 · Cited by 83
Bousso, R. S., Misko, M. D., Mendes-Castillo, A. M. C., & Rossato, L. M. (2012) · Journal of Family Nursing · doi:10.1177/1074840711427038 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Milne, J., & Oberle, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 413-420
- ISSN
- 1071-5754 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2416156128
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 7.95
- 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: Enhancing Rigor in Qualitative Description. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00152192-200511000-00014
- The paper
- Milne, J., & Oberle, K. (2005). Enhancing Rigor in Qualitative Description. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1097/00152192-200511000-00014
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.
