The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists
Open accessAbstract
Qualitative research provides a valuable source of evidence to enhance occupational therapy practice. Occupational therapists need to consider the issue of trustworthiness prior to deciding whether the findings of qualitative research have relevance to their day‐to‐day work. By trustworthiness we mean the extent to which the findings are an authentic reflection of the personal or lived experiences of the phenomenon under investigation. In this article we provide guidance to enable occupational therapists to competently determine the trustworthiness of a qualitative research project. We do this by explaining, and illustrating with examples, six considerations that should be taken into account when determining whether the method, findings and interpretation of a qualitative research have been conducted in a trustworthy manner. These considerations are evidence of thick description, triangulation strategies, member‐checking, collaboration between the researcher and the researched, transferability and reflexivity. Once the trustworthiness of a qualitative research has been determined, occupational therapists are in a better position to consider how the research findings may impact on their practice.
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
(1990) · Cited by 8,425
(1998) · UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · Cited by 4,686
Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness
Krefting, L. (1991) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 · Cited by 4,174
Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x · Cited by 2,311
Self-citationThe Quality of Qualitative Research
Seale, C. (1999) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9780857020093 · Cited by 2,012
Denzin, N. (1989) · doi:10.4135/9781412984584 · Cited by 1,947
Research with children: perspectives and practices
Hayes, M. (2001) · Educational Action Research · doi:10.1080/09650790100200296 · Cited by 1,458
The co-dependency concept: Does it offer a solution for the spouses of alcoholics?
Miller, K. J. (1994) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/0740-5472(94)90044-2 · Cited by 1,399
Morgan, D. L. (1998) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239800800307 · Cited by 1,374
Developing and Implementing a Triangulation Protocol for Qualitative Health Research
Farmer, T., Robinson, K., Elliott, S. J., & Eyles, J. (2006) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305285708 · Cited by 997
Cited by
Daniel, B. K. (2018) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.1108/qrj-d-17-00012 · Cited by 64
Bałdyga, M., Barański, K., Belter, J., Kalinowski, M., & Weichbroth, P. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24082633 · Cited by 40
A shift from offline to online: Adolescence, the internet and social participation
Kennedy, J., & Lynch, H. (2016) · Journal of Occupational Science · doi:10.1080/14427591.2015.1117523 · Cited by 35
ERYILMAZ, Ö. (2022) · Participatory Educational Research · doi:10.17275/per.22.70.9.3 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Curtin, M., & Fossey, E.
- Venue
- Australian Occupational Therapy Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 88-94
- ISSN
- 0045-0766 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-1630
- OpenAlex
- W1989479210
- Cited by
- 503
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 43.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.x
- The paper
- Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.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.