CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 767

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations

Cypress, Brigitte S.·2017·Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing
DOI 10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Issues are still raised even now in the 21st century by the persistent concern with achieving rigor in qualitative research. There is also a continuing debate about the analogous terms reliability and validity in naturalistic inquiries as opposed to quantitative investigations. This article presents the concept of rigor in qualitative research using a phenomenological study as an exemplar to further illustrate the process. Elaborating on epistemological and theoretical conceptualizations by Lincoln and Guba, strategies congruent with qualitative perspective for ensuring validity to establish the credibility of the study are described. A synthesis of the historical development of validity criteria evident in the literature during the years is explored. Recommendations are made for use of the term rigor instead of trustworthiness and the reconceptualization and renewed use of the concept of reliability and validity in qualitative research, that strategies for ensuring rigor must be built into the qualitative research process rather than evaluated only after the inquiry, and that qualitative researchers and students alike must be proactive and take responsibility in ensuring the rigor of a research study. The insights garnered here will move novice researchers and doctoral students to a better conceptual grasp of the complexity of reliability and validity and its ramifications for qualitative inquiry.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 1981, Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries, Educ Comm Tech J, 29, 75, 10.1007/BF02766777 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 2002, Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research, Int J Qual Methods, 1, 13, 10.1177/160940690200100202 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 1993, Validity and reliability in qualitative research, Curationis, 16, 35
  4. 2011, Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research, J Spec Ped Nurs, 16, 151, 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x · DOI
  5. 2002, Reading qualitative studies, Int J Qual Methods, 1, 74, 10.1177/160940690200100107 · DOI
  6. 2002, Qualitative research and the question of rigor, Qual Health Res, 12, 279, 10.1177/104973230201200211 · DOI
  7. 2006, Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research, J Adv Nurs, 53, 304, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x · DOI
  8. 1994, Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research, Eval Pract, 15, 283
  9. 1997, Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: methodological considerations without prescription, Qual Inquiry, 3, 93, 10.1177/107780049700300105 · DOI
  10. 2003, Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research, The Qual Rep, 8, 597
  11. 1991, Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness, Am J Occup Ther, 45, 214, 10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 1999, Observations on positivism and pseudoscience in qualitative nursing research, J Adv Nurs, 30, 67, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01050.x · DOI
  13. 1999, Myth #93: reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry, Qual Health Res, 9, 717, 10.1177/104973299129122171 · DOI
  14. 2005, Learning transfer: a review of the research in adult education and training, PAACE J Lifelong Learn, 14, 1
  15. 1987, Some notes on the terms “validity” and “reliability”, Brit Educ Res J, 13, 73, 10.1080/0141192870130107 · DOI
  16. 1995, What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research, PAACE J Lifelong Learn, 4, 51
  17. 2000, A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research, The Qual Rep, 4, 1
  18. 2000, A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research, The Qualitative Report, 4, 3
  19. 1997, Validity in image based research: an elaborated illustration of the issues, Brit Educ Res J, 23, 661, 10.1080/0141192970230508 · DOI
  20. 2015, Validity in qualitative evaluation: linking purposes, paradigms, and perspectives, Int J Qual Methods, 14, 1
  21. 2000, The research process, The Quant Rep J, 4, 597
  22. 2001, Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own, Manage Decision, 39, 551, 10.1108/EUM0000000005801 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 1993, Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited, ANS Adv Nurs Sci, 16, 1, 10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002 · DOI
  24. 2001, Validity in qualitative research, Qual Health Res, 11, 522, 10.1177/104973201129119299 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 1931, Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. (Trans. Gibson WR)
  26. 2002, Validity, reliability and the assessment of engineering education, J Eng Educ, 91, 351, 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00714.x · DOI
  27. 1987, Validity in qualitative research: why the worry about warrant will not wane, Educ Urban Soc, 20, 9, 10.1177/0013124587020001003 · DOI
  28. 1990, Validation in inquiry-guided research: the role of exemplars in narrative studies, Harvard Educ Rev, 60, 415, 10.17763/haer.60.4.n4405243p6635752 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cypress, B. S.
Venue
Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2017-07
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
253-263
ISSN
  • 1538-8646
  • 0730-4625
DOI
10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253
Cited by
767
References
8
Language
en

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