Empirical verification of the “TACT” framework for teaching rigour in qualitative research methodology
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a framework intended to guide students and novice researchers in learning about the necessary dimensions for assessing the rigour of qualitative research studies. The framework has four dimensions – (T)rustworthiness, (A)uditability, (C)redibility and (T)ransferability. The development of TACT is informed by various discourses of rigour in the qualitative research methods literature. Results of an empirical verification of TACT suggests that postgraduate students and faculty learning qualitative research found the framework useful for learning rigour in qualitative research methods. TACT also serves as an important theoretical tool for setting directions for further discourses on teaching and learning critical aspects of rigour in qualitative research methodology. Design/methodology/approach The formal verification of the TACT started with a development of a rating tool. The tool consisted of a total of 16 items, 4 items per each dimension. The items were ranked on five-scale Likert points (1=very important, 2=important, 3=neutral, 4=less important, 5=not important). The instrument was piloted and tested for reliability revealing an overall Cronbach’s α (α=0.86), which indicates a good level of internal consistency (George and Mallery, 2003) among the dimensions. The tool was put online and sent out to participants enroled in workshops on “assessing rigour in qualitative research studies”. Findings Overall, participants found TA…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 findings of this study reflect high transferability and auditability, as lessons learned can be useful in similar GSRSs contexts and can be successfully implemented into university lectures in the future.
“The findings of this study also reflect high transferability and auditability (Daniel 2018), as the lessons learned from this work can be useful in similar GSRSs contexts (e.g.Socrative, Quizlet and Buzz!) and can be successfully implemented into university lectures in the future.”
From Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning (2018) · cites this paper as Daniel 2018
Cites
Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 · Cited by 9,184 · see citing works
Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
Malterud, K. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05627-6 · Cited by 5,014 · see citing works
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742 · see citing works
Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 · Cited by 3,569 · see citing works
Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Morrow, S. L. (2005) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250 · Cited by 3,199 · see citing works
The problem of rigor in qualitative research
Sandelowski, M. (1986) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005 · Cited by 2,772 · see citing works
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Barbour, R. S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · Cited by 2,613 · see citing works
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x · Cited by 1,601 · see citing works
Methods and Meanings: Credibility and Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research
Cope, D. G. (2014) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/14.onf.89-91 · Cited by 812 · see citing works
The problem of appraising qualitative research
Dixon-Woods, M. (2004) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.008714 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning
Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8 · Cited by 521 · see citing works
Self-citationEnworo, O. C. (2023) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
- Authors
- Daniel, B. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Daniel, Ben Kei
- ORCID
- Daniel, Ben Kei
- Venue
- Qualitative Research Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2018-03-28
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 262-275
- ISSN
- 1443-9883 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2794609325
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Research Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- trustworthiness, auditability, credibility, transferability, graduate students, reflexivity, research quality
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