The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Open accessAbstract
Checklists can be useful improving qualitative research methods, but overzealous and uncritical use can be counterproductive Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog” None of these “technical fixes” in itself confers rigour; they can strengthen the rigour of qualitative research only if embedded in a broader understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Checklists can help qualitative research gain acceptance, but using them prescriptively risks reducing qualitative research to technical fixes and letting “the tail wag the dog.” The paper argues that purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation do not in themselves confer rigour unless embedded in broader qualitative understanding.
Key findings
- Checklists have contributed to wider acceptance of qualitative methods, but overzealous and uncritical use can be counterproductive; reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures is overly prescriptive.
- The five technical fixes discussed—purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation—do not in themselves confer rigour; they can strengthen rigour only if embedded in a broad understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis.
- Multiple coding’s value lies less in concordance than in the content of disagreements and the insights discussion provides for refining coding frames; the paper cites Armstrong et al., in which six experienced researchers independently coded one focus group transcript and showed substantial agreement but considerable variation in how they packaged coding frameworks.
- Triangulation is difficult to perform properly because different methods produce parallel datasets that defy direct comparison; similar findings provide corroboration, but absence of similar findings does not provide grounds for refutation. Respondent validation can refine explanations but may lead to collusion or be exploitative/distressing, and is particularly valuable in action research rather than one-off data collection.
Methods
- Design: methodological critique/commentary, not an empirical study; the article outlines limitations of five popular “technical fixes” and argues for systematic application of qualitative principles.
- Data or sample: no primary sample or dataset; the argument draws on the author’s experience reviewing journal articles and grant submissions, recent journals, and cited literature, and is based on a presentation to the British Sociological Association’s Regional Medical Sociology Group in London in March 2000.
- Main analysis: conceptual examination of purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation, with a table summarising the concerns each is thought to address and its realistic potential.
Limitations
- The paper does not state formal limitations; it notes that claims about researchers having to comply with journal requirements may be exaggerated and that the article is based on a conference presentation.
- Evident from the text: as a commentary/opinion piece, it does not use a systematic review, formal sampling, or empirical data collection, so its claims rest on the author’s experience and selected citations.
- Evident from the text: the examples and table are conceptual and illustrative; no quantitative estimates of prevalence or effect are provided.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own interpretation · 20 Not checked yet · 9 No basis given · 1 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite disclaimers by authors that their checklists should be viewed as being “reflective rather than constitutive of good research,”5 there is evidence that checklists are sometimes being used prescriptively.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Although six experienced researchers who independently coded one focus group transcript showed substantial agreement, Armstrong et al found considerable variation in the ways that they packaged coding frameworks (including the language used).16”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, it does not readily lend itself to the production or observance of such a hierarchy of evidence.18”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Qualitative research, however, is usually carried out from a relativist perspective, which acknowledges the existence of multiple views of equal validity.1”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, samples may have been selected purposively, but they are not being used purposefully to interrogate the data collected.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, triangulation is difficult to perform properly: data collected using different methods come in different forms and defy direct comparison.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The uncritical adoption of a range of “technical fixes” (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) does not, in itself, confer rigour.”
- Also stated in: § Summary points · plain
“None of these “technical fixes” in itself confers rigour”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“None of these technical fixes, in itself, confers rigour.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Summary points · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because different methods used in qualitative research furnish parallel datasets, each affording only a partial view of the whole picture.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is true for different types of qualitative data, such as interview and focus group transcripts, as well as for the more obvious differences between qualitative and quantitative data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rather than aspiring to statistical generalisability or representativeness,6 qualitative research usually aims to reflect the diversity within a given population.7”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Kuzel AJ .Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF Miller WL , eds. Doing qualitative research. London:Sage,1992:31–44.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 43
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When they are provided at all, details of sampling are often dealt with in the methods section of papers and are disregarded in the analysis section, which often consists of little more than a description of undifferentiated themes that emerged during data analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sometimes researchers choose to disregard their own interpretations and to accept those of respondents at face value.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, few published papers yield the surprises likely to be a feature of analyses driven entirely by respondents' concerns, and the terminology and theories to which papers appeal generally bear an uncanny resemblance to current disciplinary concerns and debates.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All too often, however, the tension between these two different sorts of insight—and its potential to illuminate the topic being studied—is not explored in the presentation of findings.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over the past two years, several researchers have informed me that they must comply with various procedures (such as respondent validation, multiple coding, etc) in order to satisfy the requirements of specific journals where they hope to publish their work.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From reading recent journals and my experience of reviewing journal articles and grant submissions, I find that the five technical fixes currently enjoying the greatest popularity are purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation (table).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“With purposive sampling, researchers deliberately seek to include “outliers” conventionally discounted in quantitative approaches.9”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Barbour, 1999, The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research., J Health Serv Res Policy source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It can be useful to have another person cast an eye over segments of data or emergent coding frameworks, and this is a core activity of supervision sessions and research team meetings.15”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such exercises encourage thoroughness, both in interrogating the data at hand and in providing an account of how an analysis was developed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The production of similar findings from different methods merely provides corroboration or reassurance; the absence of similar findings does not, however, provide grounds for refutation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Otherwise we run the risk of compromising the unique contribution that systematic and thoughtfully carried out qualitative research can make to health services research.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Systematic qualitative research has a unique contribution to make to health services research.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
In the paper
“Richardson suggests that it is more helpful to conceive of complementary rather than competing perspectives and offers the term “crystallisation” as an alternative to triangulation.19”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of an attempt to systematically analyse the commonalities and contradictions reflected in the data, many researchers produce an artificially neat and tidy account that is descriptive rather than analytical and which militates against formulating in-depth analyses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most health services research, however, involves a one-off data collection exercise, in which respondent validation may be more trouble than it is worth.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether this is carried out by a conscientious lone researcher, by a team, or by involving independent experts is immaterial: what matters is that a systematic process is followed and that this is rendered transparent in the written research project.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although checklists have undoubtedly contributed to the wider acceptance of such methods, these can be counterproductive if used prescriptively.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sleight of hand produces a list of “themes,” and we are invited to take it on trust that theory somehow emerges from the data without being offered a step by step explanation of how theoretical insights have been built up.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Mays and Pope point out, researchers seek to provide an overview whereas respondents have individual concerns, and this can result in apparently discrepant accounts.20”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Checklists have played an important role in conferring respectability on qualitative research and in convincing potential sceptics of its thoroughness.1–3”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, however, you are unlikely to obtain research funding without having carried out a thorough literature review or having formulated some idea of the content of the data you are likely to collect.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Respondents' reactions to emerging findings can certainly help refine explanations—as can key informants'—but several commentators have questioned whether it is always appropriate.20,21”
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple coding concerns the same issue as the quantitative equivalent “inter-rater reliability” and is a response to the charge of subjectivity sometimes levelled at the process of qualitative data analysis.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Purposive (or theoretical8) sampling, however, offers researchers a degree of control rather than being at the mercy of any selection bias inherent in pre-existing groups (such as clinic populations).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Uncritical adoption of grounded theory can result in explanations tinged with the “near mysticism” that Melia derides in the original text on grounded theory.12”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Glaser B Strauss A .The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:Aldine,1967.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Respondent validation exercises, such as reading of drafts, make considerable demands on participants' time and, depending on the research topic and content of transcripts, can even be exploitative or distressing.23”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Barbour RS .Engagement, representation and presentation in research practice. In: Barbour RS Huby G , eds. Meddling with mythology: AIDS and the social construction of knowledge. London:Routledge,1998:183–200.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondent validation can be particularly valuable in action research projects, where researchers work with participants on an ongoing basis to facilitate change.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While I would caution against multiple coding of entire datasets (on the grounds of economy in both cost and effort), some element of multiple coding can be a valuable strategy.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The greatest potential of multiple coding lies in its capacity to furnish alternative interpretations and thereby to act as the “devil's advocate” implied in many of the checklists1–3 in alerting researchers to all potentially competing explanations.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“This can be cosy but may lead to collusion: Atkinson has warned of the dangers of “romanticising” respondents' accounts.22”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the degree of concordance between researchers is not really important; what is ultimately of value is the content of disagreements and the insights that discussion can provide for refining coding frames.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That would involve applying the constant comparative method11 to continuously compare the views and experiences of respondents who have been selected precisely—indeed, purposively—in order to illuminate subtle but potentially important differences.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Green, 1998, Commentary: grounded theory and the constant comparative method., BMJ
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some strategies claimed as examples of purposive sampling in effect involve hybrids, which retain elements of random or convenience sampling and which are unlikely to yield the spread of respondents required.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In its purest form the grounded theory approach to data analysis alleges that all explanations or theories are derived from the dataset itself rather than from a researcher's prior theoretical viewpoint.12”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Glaser B Strauss A .The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:Aldine,1967.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Triangulation addresses the issue of internal validity by using more than one method of data collection to answer a research question.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such approaches do not use qualitative datasets to full advantage.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Triangulation relies on the notion of a fixed point, or superior explanation, against which other interpretations can be measured.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog””
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures, however extensive, is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog.””
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
In the paper
“As Mays and Pope conclude, comprehensiveness may be a more realistic goal for qualitative research than is internal validity.20”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative research, with its distinctive approach to harnessing the analytical potential of exceptions, allows a research question to be examined from various angles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It allows for such deviant cases to illuminate, by juxtaposition, those processes and relations that routinely come into play, thereby enabling “the exception to prove the rule.”9,10”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Barbour, 1999, The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research., J Health Serv Res Policy source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Frankland J Bloor M .Some issues arising in the systematic analysis of focus group materials. In: Barbour RS Kitzinger J , eds. Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice. London:Sage,1999:144–155. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Respondents' reactions to emerging findings can certainly help refine explanations—as can key informants'—but several commentators have questioned whether it is always appropriate.20,21”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Technical fixes will achieve little unless they are embedded in a broader understanding of the rationale and assumptions behind qualitative research.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“They can strengthen the rigour of qualitative research only if they are embedded in a broad understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to this approach, apparent contradictions (or exceptions) do not pose a threat to researchers' explanations; they merely provide further scope for refining theories.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although some of the technical fixes discussed here may seem appealing in the face of the dual imperatives of securing grant funding and publication, each has limitations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Grounded theory Original theorising Developing existing theory or, occasionally, new theories”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondent validation Confirmation or refutation of interpretations Corroborating or, more often, refining findings”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Triangulation Confirmation or refutation of internal validity Corroborating or, more often, refining findings”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Purposive sampling Bias Enhancing sample coverage and providing a framework for analysis”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple coding Inter-rater reliability Refining interpretations or coding frameworks”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Systematic qualitative research has a unique contribution to make to health services research.
“Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research”
“Otherwise we run the risk of compromising the unique contribution that systematic and thoughtfully carried out qualitative research can make to health services research.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8)[8,18-21,23,26].”
From The case study approach (2011) · cites this paper as [19]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[8,18-21].”
From The case study approach (2011) · cites this paper as [19]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8)[8,18-21,23,26].”
From The case study approach (2011) · cites this paper as [19]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8)[8,18-21,23,26].”
From The case study approach (2011) · cites this paper as [19]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001).”
From GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation (2024) · cites this paper as Barbour, 2001
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“They contend that a strict emphasis on checklists restrains the diversity and multiplicity of practices within qualitative research, reducing it to a set of technical procedures (Barbour, 2001; Riley et al., 2019).”
From Quality Criteria: General and Specific Guidelines for Qualitative Approaches in Psychology Research. A Concise Guide for Novice Researchers and Reviewers (2024) · cites this paper as Barbour, 2001
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As Barbour (2001) observes, using checklists risks becoming a methodological crutch that avoids deep engagement with the method.”
From The pursuit of quality in grounded theory (2021) · cites this paper as Barbour (2001)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Yet, the prevailing view held by qualitative scholars from a social constructivist standpoint (Kress, 2011), that we would align ourselves with, is that the idea of foundational criteria (i.e., fixed and universal) against which the quality of qualitative research can be judged is flawed (Barbour, 2001; Hammersley, 2007; Lazaraton, 2003; Richards, 2009; Shohamy, 2004; Tracy, 2020).”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Barbour, 2001
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This was apparent in the attention paid to the reliability of coding data by multiple researchers, indicative of an underlying belief in the identification and mitigation of researcher bias (Barbour, 2001; Kvale, 1996) and a singular meaning or truth being embedded within a given transcript (Terry et al., 2017).”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Barbour, 2001
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We agree with the position of Barbour (2001) in that double coding of transcripts offers value more in how the content of coding disagreements and the discussions that follow alert coders to alternative interpretations and shape the evolution of coding categories, rather than to indicate the exact degree of intersubjectivity.”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Barbour, 2001
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content.”
From GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation (2024) · cites this paper as Barbour, 2001
In the citing paper
“Their use to determine the inclusion of qualitative studies is often not recommended as many existing tools do not capture the multiple meanings of “good quality” and “rightness”; therefore, studies should often not be excluded based on this quality assessment [22, 24].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Existing quality assessments were explored, but it has been noted that available quality assessment approaches often fail to consider the rationale and context of studies [22, 23].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Diary extracts, verbatim interview transcripts and field notes were analysed using applied thematic analysis techniques [39], following the principles of constant comparison [40] to enhance internal validity [41].”
In the citing paper
“This system of checking and critiquing the analysis was not merely to promote consensus but was a way of more deeply interrogating the data and exploring alternative explanations.157”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [157]
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
The Discovery of Grounded Theory
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203793206-1 · Cited by 8,386
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
Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109 · Cited by 2,715
Quality in Qualitative Research
Seale, C. (1999) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/107780049900500402 · Cited by 1,743
Developing Focus Group Research
Barbour, R. S., & Kitzinger, J. V. (1999) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849208857 · Cited by 1,603
Self-citation(2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203413081 · Cited by 1,516
Sampling in qualitative inquiry
Kuzel, A. J. (1992) · Cited by 1,316
The Place of Inter-Rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: An Empirical Study
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/0038038597031003015 · Cited by 1,008
Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239800800305 · Cited by 987
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,081
Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316654870 · Cited by 3,970
Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919899220 · Cited by 3,871
“Some recommendation of multiple coding often appears on such checklists (Barbour, 2001).”
BackgroundInfluentialEnhancing 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
“Just as there are no standardised criteria for assessing the quality of all quantitative research, standardising criteria for assessing the standard of conduct in all qualitative research which embraces a range of designs, is not possible or appropriate [31,34].”
BackgroundCrowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100 · Cited by 2,697
Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?
Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019 · Cited by 1,984
O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794112446106 · Cited by 1,943
A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2011) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1954824 · Cited by 1,849
A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review
Okoli, C. (2015) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03743 · Cited by 1,413
Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research
Leung, L. (2015) · Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care · doi:10.4103/2249-4863.161306 · Cited by 1,404
Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen‐Mäntymäki, E. (2010) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.55 · Cited by 1,336
The pursuit of quality in grounded theory
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357 · Cited by 1,221
“As Barbour (2001) observes, using checklists risks becoming a methodological crutch that avoids deep engagement with the method.”
BackgroundPerski, O., Blandford, A., West, R., & Michie, S. (2017) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1 · Cited by 1,193
Analysing and presenting qualitative data
Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. T., & Chadwick, B. L. (2008) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292 · Cited by 1,328
Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research
Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Bradley, E. H. (2009) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.742775 · Cited by 1,175
Varpio, L., Ajjawi, R., Monrouxe, L. V., O'Brien, B. C., & Rees, C. E. (2017) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13124 · Cited by 1,028
Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt
Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-21 · Cited by 981
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., & Donovan, J. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00064-3 · Cited by 921
Generating best evidence from qualitative research: the role of data analysis
Green, J. B., Willis, K. F., Hughes, E., Small, R. E., Welch, N., Gibbs, L. F., & Daly, J. (2007) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x · Cited by 975
Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gülmezoglu, M., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Garside, R., & Rashidian, A. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 · Cited by 866
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations
Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.818 · Cited by 913
An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis
Scholl, I., Zill, J. M., Härter, M. C., & Dirmaier, J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107828 · Cited by 784
Bannister, S. J. (2009) · Cited by 749
Quality in qualitative research
Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01595.x · Cited by 728
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
O’Connor, S., Hanlon, P., O’Donnell, C. A., Garcia, S., Glanville, J., & Mair, F. S. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3 · Cited by 636
Qualitative analysis of mothers’ decision-making about vaccines for infants: the importance of trust
Benin, A. L., Wisler-Scher, D. J., Colson, E., Shapiro, E. D., & Holmboe, E. S. (2006) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1728 · Cited by 608
COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies)
Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Noyes, J., Harris, J., & Tong, A. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118715598.ch21 · Cited by 614
The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review
Orton, L., Lloyd‐Williams, F., Taylor-Robinson, D. C., O’Flaherty, M., & Capewell, S. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021704 · Cited by 600
Greenhalgh, J., Gooding, K., Gibbons, E. J., Dalkin, S. M., Wright, J. M., Valderas, J. M., & Black, N. A. (2018) · Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s41687-018-0061-6 · Cited by 597
Barbour, R. S. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x · Cited by 618
Self-citationLucas, P. J., Baird, J., Arai, L., Law, C., & Roberts, H. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-4 · Cited by 567
Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244 · Cited by 674
Research paradigms in medical education research
Bunniss, S., & Kelly, D. R. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03611.x · Cited by 613
Murray, J. (2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470684214.ch7 · Cited by 531
Appraising the quality of qualitative research
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2006) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2005.05.004 · Cited by 523
Walter, F. M., Webster, A., Scott, S. E., & Emery, J. D. (2011) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113 · Cited by 517
‘Best practice’ in focus group research: making sense of different views
Freeman, T. (2006) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04043.x · Cited by 516
Feedback from research participants: are member checks useful in qualitative research?
Thomas, D. R. (2017) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435 · Cited by 487
Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart, A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181722 · Cited by 464
A Web of opportunity or the same old story? Women digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory
Dy, A. M., Marlow, S., & Martin, L. (2016) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726716650730 · Cited by 490
Musheke, M., Ntalasha, H., Gari, S., Mckenzie, O., Bond, V. A., Martin‐Hilber, A., & Merten, S. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-220 · Cited by 433
Lennox, L., Maher, L., & Reed, J. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0707-4 · Cited by 421
Meyrick, J. (2006) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105306066643 · Cited by 402
Awate, S. S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. (2014) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.46 · Cited by 395
How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices
Sbaraini, A., Carter, S. M., Evans, R. W., & Blinkhorn, A. S. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-128 · Cited by 388
The patient–doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients' perspectives
Ridd, M. J., Shaw, A. R. G., Lewis, G., & Salisbury, C. (2009) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp09x420248 · Cited by 379
Ajjawi, R., & Higgs, J. (2015) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1616 · Cited by 396
Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-27 · Cited by 377
McDaid, L. M., Parkes, A., Wight, D., Petticrew, M. P., & Hart, G. J. (2009) · Reproductive Health · doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-3 · Cited by 374
Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung
Flick, U. (2010) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_28 · Cited by 378
An Introduction to Qualitative Research for Food and Nutrition Professionals
Harris, J. E., Gleason, P., Sheean, P., Boushey, C. J., Beto, J. A., & Bruemmer, B. (2008) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/j.jada.2008.10.018 · Cited by 369
Malpass, A., Shaw, A., Sharp, D., Walter, F., Feder, G., Ridd, M., & Kessler, D. (2009) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.068 · Cited by 368
Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview
Whittemore, R., Chao, A. M., Jang, M., Minges, K. E., & Park, C. (2014) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014 · Cited by 410
Schwarze, M. L. (2014) · Success in academic surgery · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4718-3_18 · Cited by 355
Member Checking: Can Benefits Be Gained Similar to Group Therapy?
Harper, M., & Cole, P. M. (2015) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2012.2139 · Cited by 352
Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research
Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732309348501 · Cited by 327
Challenges in Approaching Metasynthesis Research
Bondas, T. E., & Hall, E. O. C. (2006) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732306295879 · Cited by 356
Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine
Lambert, H. (2006) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.023 · Cited by 320
Birden, H. H., Glass, N., Wilson, I. G., Harrison, M., Usherwood, T. P., & Nass, D. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.789132 · Cited by 317
Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction
Ramanadhan, S., Revette, A. C., Lee, R. M., & Aveling, E. L. (2021) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-021-00174-1 · Cited by 422
Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools
Majid, U., & Vanstone, M. (2018) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732318785358 · Cited by 301
Sharing the true stories: improving communication between Aboriginal patients and healthcare workers
Cass, A., Lowell, A., Christie, M., Snelling, P. L., Flack, M., Marrnganyin, B., & Brown, I. (2002) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04517.x · Cited by 298
ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study
Wilson, P., Mathie, E., Keenan, J., McNeilly, E., Goodman, C., Howe, A., Poland, F., Staniszewska, S., Kendall, S., Munday, D., et al. (2015) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr03380 · Cited by 297
“This system of checking and critiquing the analysis was not merely to promote consensus but was a way of more deeply interrogating the data and exploring alternative explanations.(157) The co-researchers on the core research team were actively involved throughout the analysis and emerging findings/analysis discussed w…”
Eakin, J. M., & Mykhalovskiy, E. (2003) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x · Cited by 296
Evaluation of qualitative research studies
Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. (2003) · Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.2.36 · Cited by 323
Making words count: the value of qualitative research
Johnson, R., & Waterfield, J. (2004) · Physiotherapy Research International · doi:10.1002/pri.312 · Cited by 290
“Thinking too much”: a systematic review of a common idiom of distress
Kaiser, B. N., Haroz, E. E., Kohrt, B. A., Bolton, P. A., Bass, J. K., & Hinton, D. E. (2015) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.044 · Cited by 287
Multicultural Meanings of Social Support among Immigrants and Refugees
Stewart, M., Anderson, J. M., Beiser, M., Mwakarimba, E., Neufeld, A., Simich, L., & Spitzer, D. L. (2008) · International Migration · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2008.00464.x · Cited by 282
The Customer Engagement/Value Interface: An Exploratory Investigation
Hollebeek, L. D. (2012) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.08.006 · Cited by 303
Dalkin, S. M., Forster, N., Hodgson, P., Lhussier, M., & Carr, S. M. (2020) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1803528 · Cited by 271
Pocock, M., Trivedi, D. P., Wills, W., Bunn, F., & Magnusson, J. (2009) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1467-789x.2009.00648.x · Cited by 285
"Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches.
Booth, A. (2006) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 267
Hill, J., Hoyt, J., van Eijk, A. M., D’Mello-Guyett, L., ter Kuile, F. O., Steketee, R. W., Smith, H. J. J., & Webster, J. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001488 · Cited by 278
Anthropology in health research: from qualitative methods to multidisciplinarity
Lambert, H., & McKevitt, C. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7357.210 · Cited by 262
Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Lloyd-Jones, M. (2012) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732312452937 · Cited by 248
Defining professionalism in medical education: A systematic review
Birden, H. H., Glass, N., Wilson, I. G., Harrison, M., Usherwood, T. P., & Nass, D. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.850154 · Cited by 247
Fertility Issues in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors
Benedict, C., Shuk, E., & Ford, J. S. (2015) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1089/jayao.2015.0024 · Cited by 245
Ferrer, H. B., Trotter, C. L., Hickman, M., & Audrey, S. (2014) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-700 · Cited by 261
SRQR and COREQ Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Studies
Dossett, L. A., Kaji, A. H., & Cochran, A. L. (2021) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0525 · Cited by 251
Moffatt, S., White, M., Mackintosh, J., & Howel, D. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-28 · Cited by 239
Changes in Sexuality and Intimacy After the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer
Hawkins, Y., Ussher, J. M., Gilbert, E., Perz, J., Sandoval, M., & Sundquist, K. J. (2009) · Cancer Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncc.0b013e31819b5a93 · Cited by 238
Riggs, E., Davis, E. C., Gibbs, L. F., Block, K., Szwarc, J., Casey, S., Duell‐Piening, P., & Waters, E. (2012) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-117 · Cited by 253
Rose, D. S., Trevillion, K., Woodall, A., Morgan, C., Feder, G. S., & Howard, L. M. (2010) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.109.072389 · Cited by 259
What can experience add to early medical education? Consensus survey
Dornan, T., & Bundy, C. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7470.834 · Cited by 232
Moffatt, S., Steer, M., Lawson, S., Penn, L., & O’Brien, N. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015203 · Cited by 241
Applying Constant Comparative Method with Multiple Investigators and Inter-Coder Reliability
Olson, J., McAllister, C. A., Grinnell, L., Walters, K., & Appunn, F. D. (2016) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2447 · Cited by 256
Guo, P., East, L. A., & Arthur, A. J. (2011) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.08.008 · Cited by 245
Craft vs. industrial: Habits, attitudes and motivations towards beer consumption in Mexico
Gómez‐Corona, C., Escalona‐Buendía, H. B., García, M., Chollet, S., & Valentin, D. (2015) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.002 · Cited by 226
Garrison, K. A., Santoyo, J. F., Davis, J. H., Thornhill, T. A., Kerr, C. E., & Brewer, J. A. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00440 · Cited by 219
Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000
Richards, K. (2009) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444808005612 · Cited by 243
Mizock, L. M., & Mueser, K. T. (2014) · Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity · doi:10.1037/sgd0000029 · Cited by 215
Lokot, T. (2016) · doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1081822 · Cited by 209
Qualitative HCI Research: Going Behind the Scenes
BLANDFORD, A. E., Furniss, D. J., & Makri, S. (2016) · Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics · doi:10.2200/s00706ed1v01y201602hci034 · Cited by 89
Barr, M., & Shields, N. (2011) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01425.x · Cited by 206
Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings
Hammell, K. W. (2006) · Spinal Cord · doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3101992 · Cited by 206
Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate
Bakhtiar, A., Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2017) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-017-9178-x · Cited by 204
Wong, S. S.-L., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 203
Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
Hagens, V. K., Dobrow, M., & Chafe, R. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-47 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Barbour, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Barbour, Rosaline S
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-05-05
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 7294
- Pages
- 1115-1117
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC1120242
- OpenAlex
- W2081358848
- Semantic Scholar
- b3318d66069cc164ac085d15dc25cafac82c9d6b
- Cited by
- 2,613
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 87 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 136 · 2020: 182 · 2019: 200 · 2018: 173 · 2017: 177 · 2016: 170 · 2015: 171 · 2014: 156 · 2013: 131 · 2012: 101
- FWCI
- 190.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- checklists, research methodology, purposive sampling, grounded theory, triangulation, qualitative research design, data analysis, health services research
- MeSH terms
- Health Services Research, Humans, Research Design, Sampling Studies, Reproducibility of Results
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
