CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,295Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide

Open access
Kallio, Hanna, Pietilä, Anna‐Maija, Johnson, Martin, Kangasniemi, Mari·2016·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1111/jan.13031
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aim: To produce a framework for the development of a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Background: Rigorous data collection procedures fundamentally influence the results of studies. The semi‐structured interview is a common data collection method, but methodological research on the development of a semi‐structured interview guide is sparse. Design: Systematic methodological review. Data sources: We searched PubMed, CINAHL , Scopus and Web of Science for methodological papers on semi‐structured interview guides from October 2004–September 2014. Having examined 2,703 titles and abstracts and 21 full texts, we finally selected 10 papers. Review methods: We analysed the data using the qualitative content analysis method. Results: Our analysis resulted in new synthesized knowledge on the development of a semi‐structured interview guide, including five phases: (1) identifying the prerequisites for using semi‐structured interviews; (2) retrieving and using previous knowledge; (3) formulating the preliminary semi‐structured interview guide; (4) pilot testing the guide; and (5) presenting the complete semi‐structured interview guide. Conclusion: Rigorous development of a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide contributes to the objectivity and trustworthiness of studies and makes the results more plausible. Researchers should consider using this five‐step process to develop a semi‐structured interview guide and justify the decisions made during it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.13031

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Internal testing of the interview questions was done within the research team to remove ambiguities from the questions.

    “Internal testing of the interview questions was done within the research team to remove ambiguities from the questions (Kallio et al. 2016).”

    From S-LCA of lithium mining in Chile and its potential impacts on water and the local community (2025) · cites this paper as Kallio et al. 2016

  • The topic guide was drafted following the framework from Kallio et al., reviewed with the second author, and piloted with a research collaborator before starting the interviews.

    “Following the framework from Kallio et al.67, the first author (SS) drafted a topic guide, inspired by existing qualitative research in this area, reviewed with the second author (AC), and piloted with a research collaborator before starting the interviews”

    From “It happened to be the perfect thing”: experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [67]

  • Semi-structured interviews are a well-established approach to enable participants to express diverse perceptions and focus on topics most meaningful to them, particularly for complex or emotionally sensitive topics.

    “We collected data using semi-structured interviews, as a well-established approach to enable participants to express diverse perceptions and focus on topics most meaningful to them, in particular for complex or emotionally sensitive topics that they may not be used to discussing with others67.”

    From “It happened to be the perfect thing”: experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [67]

  • The interview guide was developed based on a review of relevant literature and expert consultations to ensure it effectively addressed the study's aims.

    “The guide was developed based on a review of relevant literature and expert consultations to ensure it effectively addressed the study’s aims [18].”

    From Leading with AI in critical care nursing: challenges, opportunities, and the human factor (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • University of Salford (GB)
Corresponding author
Kallio, Hanna
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-23
Volume
72
Issue
12
Pages
2954-2965
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1111/jan.13031
OpenAlex
W2396339611
Cited by
4,295
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1154 · 2025: 888 · 2024: 730 · 2023: 528 · 2022: 419 · 2021: 277 · 2020: 163 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
15.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Salford Institutional Repository (University of Salford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Federation of Nurse Education
  • Aleksanteri Mikkonen's Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
semi-structured interview guide, interview guide development, qualitative data collection, pilot testing, nursing research methodology
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Learning, Research Design, Qualitative Research

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