Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research

De Witt, Lorna, Ploeg, Jenny·2006·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim. This paper reports a critical review of published nursing research for expressions of rigour in interpretive phenomenology, and a new framework of rigour specific to this methodology is proposed. Background. The rigour of interpretive phenomenology is an important nursing research methods issue that has direct implications for the legitimacy of nursing science. The use of a generic set of qualitative criteria of rigour for interpretive phenomenological studies is problematic because it is philosophically inconsistent with the methodology and creates obstacles to full expression of rigour in such studies. Methods. A critical review was conducted of the published theoretical interpretive phenomenological nursing literature from 1994 to 2004 and the expressions of rigour in this literature identified. We used three sources to inform the derivation of a proposed framework of expressions of rigour for interpretive phenomenology: the phenomenological scholar van Manen, the theoretical interpretive phenomenological nursing literature, and Madison's criteria of rigour for hermeneutic phenomenology. Findings. The nursing literature reveals a broad range of criteria for judging the rigour of interpretive phenomenological research. The proposed framework for evaluating rigour in this kind of research contains the following five expressions: balanced integration, openness, concreteness, resonance, and actualization. Balanced integration refers to the intertwining of philosophical concepts in the study methods and findings and a balance between the voices of study participants and the philosophical explanation. Openness is related to a systematic, explicit process of accounting for the multiple decisions made throughout the study process. Concreteness relates to usefulness for practice of study findings. Resonance encompasses the experiential or felt effect of reading study findings upon the reader. Finally, actualization refers to the future realization of the resonance of study findings. Conclusion. Adoption of this or similar frameworks of expressions of rigour could help to preserve the integrity and legitimacy of interpretive phenomenological nursing research.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03898.x

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
De Witt, L., & Ploeg, J.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06-15
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
215-229
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2076294807
Cited by
313
References
49
FWCI
34.93
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: Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03898.x
The paper
De Witt, L., & Ploeg, J. (2006). Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03898.x

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.