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
0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
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.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIn 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearA 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.””
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 1,005
Listen carefully: transgender voices in the workplace
Beauregard, T. A., Whiley, L. A., Booth, J. E., & Whittle, S. (2016) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1234503 · Cited by 125
Bryan, S., Williams, I., & McIver, S. (2006) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.1133 · Cited by 108
McInnes, D. K., Li, A. E., & Hogan, T. P. (2013) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301623 · Cited by 107
Chang, H.-J., Kim, H. J., Rhyu, I. J., Lee, Y., & Uhm, C.-S. (2018) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1358-0 · Cited by 107
Jepson, R. G., Harris, F., Bowes, A. M., Robertson, R., Avan, G., & Sheikh, A. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045333 · Cited by 105
Weber, J., Skodda, S., Muth, T., Angerer, P., & Loerbroks, A. (2019) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1747-z · Cited by 113
Vreese, R. D., Leys, M., Fontaine, C., & Dendoncker, N. (2016) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.048 · Cited by 104
Theorising from Case Studies: Towards a Pluralist Future for International Business Research
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen‐Mäntymäki, E. (2019) · JIBS special collections · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_9 · Cited by 104
Healthcare Finance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Qualitative Study of Householders’ Attitudes
Al‐Hanawi, M. K., Alsharqi, O., Almazrou, S. H., & Vaidya, K. (2017) · Applied Health Economics and Health Policy · doi:10.1007/s40258-017-0353-7 · Cited by 103
“You feel so hopeless”: A qualitative study of GP management of acute back pain
Breen, A. C., Austin, H., Campion‐Smith, C., Carr, E., & Mann, E. M. (2006) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.006 · Cited by 107
Students’ opinions about the effects of preclinical patient contacts on their learning
Diemers, A. D., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Verwijnen, M., Heineman, E., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2007) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-007-9070-6 · Cited by 104
Experiences of Siblings of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Angell, M. E., Meadan, H., & Stoner, J. B. (2012) · Autism Research and Treatment · doi:10.1155/2012/949586 · Cited by 102
McNair, A., MacKichan, F., Donovan, J., Brookes, S. T., AVERY, K. N. L., Griffin, S. M., Crosby, T. D. L., & Blazeby, J. M. (2016) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2292-3 · Cited by 106
Equity in healthcare resource allocation decision making: A systematic review
Lane, H., Sarkies, M., Martin, J., & Haines, T. P. (2016) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.012 · Cited by 102
Sustainability of healthcare improvement: what can we learn from learning theory?
Hovlid, E., Bukve, O., Haug, K., Aslaksen, A. B., & von Plessen, C. (2012) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-235 · Cited by 101
Cooper, K., Smith, B. H., & Hancock, E. (2008) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2008.08.005 · Cited by 101
Salleh, N. S., Abdullah, K. L., Yoong, T. L., Jayanath, S., & Husain, M. (2020) · Journal of Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2020.09.002 · Cited by 101
Raine, R., Wallace, I., Bháird, C. N. A., Xanthopoulou, P., Lanceley, A., Clarke, A. M., Prentice, A., Ardron, D., Harris, M., Gibbs, J. S. R., et al. (2014) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr02370 · Cited by 104
Maudsley, G. (2011) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2011.542523 · Cited by 100
Jones, M., Jolly, K. B., Raftery, J. P., Lip, G. Y. H., & Greenfield, S. (2007) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmm021 · Cited by 100
Understanding stakeholders' attitudes toward water management interventions: Role of place meanings
Jacobs, M. H., & Buijs, A. E. (2011) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2009wr008366 · Cited by 100
Dudley, L., Gamble, C. L., Allam, A., Bell, P. A., Buck, D., Goodare, H., Hanley, B., Preston, J., Walker, A., Williamson, P. R., et al. (2015) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4 · Cited by 99
A meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain
Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., Andrews, J., & Barker, K. (2013) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr01120 · Cited by 98
Gill, P., & Lowes, L. (2008) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.03.004 · Cited by 98
Bee, M., Shiroor, A., & Hill, Z. E. (2018) · Journal of Health Population and Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s41043-018-0141-5 · Cited by 98
Armour, M. P., Rivaux, S. L., & Bell, H. (2009) · Qualitative Social Work · doi:10.1177/1473325008100424 · Cited by 98
Slomka, J., McCurdy, S., Ratliff, E. A., Timpson, S. C., & Williams, M. L. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0319-9 · Cited by 97
Elfenbein, D. M., & Schwarze, M. L. (2020) · Success in academic surgery · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28357-5_21 · Cited by 101
Men In and Out of Treatment for Depression: Strategies for Improved Engagement
Seidler, Z. E., Rice, S. M., Oliffe, J. L., Fogarty, A. S., & Dhillon, H. M. (2018) · Australian Psychologist · doi:10.1111/ap.12331 · Cited by 96
Participants’ experiences of being interviewed about an emotive topic
Lowes, L., & Paul, G. (2006) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03950.x · Cited by 96
Patients' perceptions of GP non-verbal communication: a qualitative study
Marcinowicz, L., Konstantynowicz, J., & Godlewski, C. (2010) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp10x483111 · Cited by 96
Intersectionality shapes adaptation to social-ecological change
Erwin, A., Ma, Z., Popovici, R., O’Brien, E. P. S., Zanotti, L. C., Zeballos, E. Z., Bauchet, J., Calderón, N. R., & Larrea, G. R. A. (2020) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105282 · Cited by 99
Paskins, Z., & Peile, E. (2010) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/01421590903544710 · Cited by 95
Webb, T., Dicks, M., Thelwell, R., van der Kamp, J., & Rix‐Lièvre, G. (2019) · Sport Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.003 · Cited by 94
Kontos, P., Miller, K., Brooks, D., Jassal, S. V., Spanjevic, L., Devins, G. M., Souza, M. J. D., Heck, C. S., Laprade, J., & Naglie, G. (2007) · International Urology and Nephrology · doi:10.1007/s11255-007-9265-z · Cited by 98
Ambulance Personnel Perceptions of Near Misses and Adverse Events in Pediatric Patients
Cushman, J. T., Fairbanks, R. J. T., O’Gara, K. G., Crittenden, C. N., Pennington, E. C., Wilson, M. A., Chin, N. P., & Shah, M. N. (2010) · Prehospital Emergency Care · doi:10.3109/10903127.2010.497901 · Cited by 94
The Grounded Theory Review: An international journal
Holton, J. A., & Glaser, B. G. (2005) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 94
Understanding lay perspectives on socioeconomic health inequalities in Britain: a meta‐ethnography
Smith, K. E., & Anderson, R. (2017) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12629 · Cited by 93
Filice, E., Raffoul, A., Meyer, S. B., & Neiterman, E. (2019) · Body Image · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.08.007 · Cited by 107
Wright, R., Powell, M. B., & Ridge, D. (2006) · Policing An International Journal · doi:10.1108/13639510610684728 · Cited by 93
Thompson, H. S., & Ryan, A. A. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02694.x · Cited by 93
Guadagno, B. L., Powell, M. B., & Wright, R. (2006) · Psychiatry Psychology and Law · doi:10.1375/pplt.13.2.251 · Cited by 93
HR professionals’ views on work motivation and retention of older workers: A focus group study
Claes, R., & Heymans, M. (2008) · Career Development International · doi:10.1108/13620430810860521 · Cited by 92
Schubert, C. C., Denmark, T. K., Crandall, B., Grome, A., & Pappas, J. (2013) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.08.034 · Cited by 92
Richardson, M. A., Moore, D. A., Gwernan‐Jones, R., Coon, J. T., Ukoumunne, O. C., Rogers, M., Whear, R., Newlove-Delgado, T. V., Logan, S., Morris, C., et al. (2015) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta19450 · Cited by 112
Who decides about prostate cancer treatment? A qualitative study
Cohen, H. (2003) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmg617 · Cited by 92
Talking about drug use: what are we (and our participants) doing in qualitative research?
Martin, A., & Stenner, P. H. D. (2004) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2004.05.005 · Cited by 91
Clinical decision‐making in a multidisciplinary gynaecological cancer team: a qualitative study
Kidger, J., Murdoch, J., Donovan, J., & Blazeby, J. M. (2009) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02066.x · Cited by 91
Tijdink, J. K., Schipper, K., Bouter, L. M., Pont, P. M., de Jonge, J., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 · Cited by 104
Inside Asylum Bureaucracy: Organizing Refugee Status Determination in Austria
Dahlvik, J. (2018) · IMISCOE research series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63306-0 · Cited by 97
Manuj, I., & Pohlen, T. L. (2012) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/09600031211269758 · Cited by 90
A qualitative approach to social support and breast-feeding decisions
Barona-Vilar, C., Escribá-Agüir, V., & Ferrero-Gandía, R. (2007) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2007.01.013 · Cited by 90
Toyé, F., Seers, K., & Barker, K. L. (2014) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12485 · Cited by 90
Caregiving for women with advanced breast cancer
Coristine, M., Crooks, D. L., Grunfeld, E., Stonebridge, C., & Christie, A. (2003) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.696 · Cited by 95
Walters, L. A., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2006) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305284027 · Cited by 89
Spadola, C., Rottapel, R. E., Khandpur, N., Kontos, E. Z., Bertisch, S. M., Johnson, D. A., Quante, M., Khalsa, S. B. S., Saper, R. B., & Redline, S. S. (2017) · Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2017.09.001 · Cited by 89
Agyemang‐Duah, W., Peprah, C., & Peprah, P. (2019) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7437-2 · Cited by 89
Reported stigma and discrimination by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia
Rose, D. S., Willis, R. F., Brohan, E., Sartorius, N., Villares, C. C., Wahlbeck, K., & Thornicroft, G. (2011) · Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences · doi:10.1017/s2045796011000254 · Cited by 89
School nurses’ perspectives on managing mental health problems in children and young people
Pryjmachuk, S., Graham, T., Haddad, M., & Tylee, A. T. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03838.x · Cited by 89
Wildman, J. M., Moffatt, S. M., Penn, L., O’Brien, N., Steer, M., & Hill, C. (2019) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.12716 · Cited by 88
Gallacher, K., Jani, B., Morrison, D., Macdonald, S., Blane, D., Erwin, P. J., May, C. R., Montori, V. M., Eton, D. T., Smith, F., et al. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-10 · Cited by 90
Rennick, J. E., Dougherty, G. E., Chambers, C. T., Stremler, R., Childerhose, J. E., Stack, D. M., Harrison, D. M., Campbell-Yeo, M. L., Dryden‐Palmer, K., Zhang, X., et al. (2014) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-276 · Cited by 88
Is it time to share qualitative research data?
DuBois, J. M., Strait, M., & Walsh, H. A. (2017) · Qualitative Psychology · doi:10.1037/qup0000076 · Cited by 107
Adherence to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Analysis
Pizzari, T., McBurney, H., Taylor, N. F., & Feller, J. A. (2002) · Journal of Sport Rehabilitation · doi:10.1123/jsr.11.2.90 · Cited by 87
Alami, S., Hervouet, L., Poiraudeau, S., Briot, K., & Roux, C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158365 · Cited by 91
Humphries, M. L., Williams, B. V., & May, T. (2018) · Journal of Applied School Psychology · doi:10.1080/15377903.2018.1425790 · Cited by 86
Adherence to advance directives in critical care decision making: vignette study
Thompson, T., Barbour, R., & Schwartz, L. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1011 · Cited by 88
Self-citationDecision-making regarding total knee replacement surgery: A qualitative meta-synthesis
O'Neill, T., Jinks, C., & Ong, B. N. (2007) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-52 · Cited by 85
Trust in Education Professionals
Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Shelden, D. L. (2008) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/0741932508315648 · Cited by 85
Georges, J.-J., The, A. M., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., & van der Wal, G. (2008) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2007.020909 · Cited by 85
Routen, A. C., Johnston, J., Glazebrook, C., & Sherar, L. B. (2018) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.003 · Cited by 85
Shepherd, A., Doyle, M., Sanders, C., & Shaw, J. J. (2015) · Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health · doi:10.1002/cbm.1966 · Cited by 100
Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics
Strech, D., Synofzik, M., & Marckmann, G. (2008) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2007.021709 · Cited by 84
The contributions of qualitative research towards dental public health practice
Bower, E. J., & Scambler, S. (2007) · Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00368.x · Cited by 84
Living through the death of a child: A qualitative study of bereaved parents’ experiences
Price, J. E., Jordan, J., Prior, L., & Parkes, J. (2011) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.05.006 · Cited by 89
Adams, J. M., White, M. J., Moffatt, S. M., Howel, D., & Mackintosh, J. E. (2006) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-81 · Cited by 84
Routledge Handbook of Theory in Sport Management
Cleland, J. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315753461 · Cited by 83
Debuse, D., Chandler, C., & Gibb, C. E. (2005) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593980500321143 · Cited by 83
Parent Perspectives on Role Engagement
Stoner, J. B., & Angell, M. E. (2006) · Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1177/10883576060210030601 · Cited by 83
Threat to Valued Elements of Life: The Experience of Dementia Across Three Ethnic Groups
Lawrence, V. C., Samsi, K., Banerjee, S., Morgan, C., & Murray, J. (2010) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnq073 · Cited by 83
Turner, A., Eccles, F. J. R., Elvish, R., Simpson, J., & Keady, J. D. (2015) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2015.1109057 · Cited by 83
The challenge of being diagnosed and treated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
Kennedy, F., Harcourt, D. M., & Rumsey, N. (2007) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2007.09.007 · Cited by 83
Health Information System Implementation: A Qualitative Meta-analysis
Rahimi, B., Vimarlund, V., & Timpka, T. (2009) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-008-9198-9 · Cited by 82
Sketches and diagrams in practice
Baltes, S., & Diehl, S. (2014) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635891 · Cited by 82
Munga, M. A., Songstad, N. G., Blystad, A., & Mæstad, O. (2009) · BMC International Health and Human Rights · doi:10.1186/1472-698x-9-9 · Cited by 82
Patient uptake and adherence to social prescribing: a qualitative study
Pescheny, J. V., Randhawa, G., & Pappas, Y. (2018) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpopen18x101598 · Cited by 82
Body-worn sensors in Parkinson’s disease: evaluating their acceptability to patients
Fisher, J. M., Hammerla, N. Y., Rochester, L., Andras, P., & Walker, R. W. (2016) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2015.0026 · Cited by 81
Quan‐Haase, A., Martin, K., & McCay‐Peet, L. (2015) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715589417 · Cited by 81
Jones, C. M. C., Cushman, J. T., Lerner, E. B., Fisher, S. G., Seplaki, C. L., Veazie, P. J., Wasserman, E. B., Dozier, A. M., & Shah, M. N. (2015) · Prehospital Emergency Care · doi:10.3109/10903127.2015.1025157 · Cited by 87
Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse as a Life‐Long Process: Implications for Health Professionals
Hunter, S. V. (2011) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy · doi:10.1375/anft.32.2.159 · Cited by 81
Byszewski, A. M., Molnar, F., Aminzadeh, F., Eisner, M., Gardezi, F., & Bassett, R. (2007) · Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · doi:10.1097/wad.0b013e318065c481 · Cited by 79
Knowledge matters: producing and using knowledge to navigate healthcare systems
Willis, K. F., Collyer, F. M., Lewis, S. C., Gabe, J., Flaherty, I., & Calnan, M. (2016) · Health Sociology Review · doi:10.1080/14461242.2016.1170624 · Cited by 84
Gagliardi, A. R., & Dobrow, M. (2016) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1533-0 · Cited by 87
Using the TACT Framework to Learn the Principles of Rigour in Qualitative Research
Daniel, B. K. (2019) · The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods · doi:10.34190/jbrm.17.3.002 · Cited by 77
Blazeby, J. M., Soulsby, M., Winstone, K., King, P. M., Bulley, S. H., & Kennedy, R. H. (2009) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02104.x · Cited by 77
Haemodialysis patients’ beliefs about renal failure and its treatment
Krespi, M. R., Bone, M., Ahmad, R. M., Worthington, B., & Salmon, P. (2003) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00147-2 · Cited by 76
Exploring the conceptualization of body image for Asian American women.
Wong, S. N., Keum, B. T., Caffarel, D., Srinivasan, R., Morshedian, N., Capodilupo, C. M., & Brewster, M. E. (2017) · Asian American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1037/aap0000077 · Cited by 79
A qualitative study of adherence to nutritional treatment: perspectives of patients and dietitians
Endevelt, R., & Gesser‐Edelsburg, A. (2014) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s54799 · Cited by 75
Rapport, F., Storey, M., Porter, A. M., Snooks, H. A., Jones, K. H., Peconi, J., Sánchez, A., Siebert, S., Thorne, K., Clement, C., et al. (2013) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-54 · Cited by 75
Robins, C. S., Ware, N. C., dosReis, S., Willging, C. E., Chung, J. Y., & Lewis‐Fernández, R. (2008) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.59.7.727 · Cited by 75
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
