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
Items 501–600 of 1,005
DURUGBO, C. M. (2013) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.857054 · Cited by 51
Evaluating standards in cross-language research: A critique of Squires’ criteria
Croot, E. J., Lees, J. A., & Grant, G. W. B. (2011) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.04.007 · Cited by 48
Ivers, N. M., Barnsley, J. M., Upshur, R. E. G., Tu, K., Shah, B. R., Grimshaw, J., & Zwarenstein, M. (2014) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 48
Markle‐Reid, M., Dykeman, C., Ploeg, J., Stradiotto, C. K., Andrews, A., Bonomo, S., Orr-Shaw, S., & Salker, N. (2017) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2089-3 · Cited by 48
Bruno, A., & Dell’Aversana, G. (2017) · Social Work Education · doi:10.1080/02615479.2017.1363883 · Cited by 48
Killingback, C., Ahmed, O. H., & Williams, J. (2018) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2018.10.012 · Cited by 48
Agyemang‐Duah, W., Peprah, C., & Peprah, P. (2019) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1007/s10389-018-01010-y · Cited by 48
Unmasking Racism: Students of Color and Expressions of Racism in Online Spaces
Eschmann, R. (2019) · Social Problems · doi:10.1093/socpro/spz026 · Cited by 48
Doan, D. T., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Naismith, N., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Zhang, T., & Tookey, J. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109508 · Cited by 48
Ylä-Anttila, T., Bauvois, G., & Pyrhönen, N. (2019) · Discourse Context & Media · doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100326 · Cited by 48
Qazi, M. A., Sharif, M. A., & Akhlaq, A. (2024) · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · doi:10.1108/jstpm-01-2022-0002 · Cited by 47
Jacobs, D., Steyaert, J. G., Dierickx, K., & Hens, K. (2019) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-019-01431-4 · Cited by 47
Individual placement and support illustrated in the Swedish welfare system: A case study
Bejerholm, U., Larsson, L., & Hofgren, C. (2011) · Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation · doi:10.3233/jvr-2011-0554 · Cited by 47
A Qualitative Evaluation of a Telemedicine‐Enhanced Emergency Care Program for Older Adults
Shah, M. N., Morris, D., Jones, C. M. C., Gillespie, S. M., Nelson, D. L., McConnochie, K. M., & Dozier, A. M. (2013) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.12157 · Cited by 47
Opening up the black box: an introduction to qualitative research methods in anaesthesia
Shelton, C., Smith, A. F., & Mort, M. (2014) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.12517 · Cited by 60
A cultural understanding of Chinese immigrant mothers' feeding practices. A qualitative study
Zhou, N., Cheah, C. S. L., Hook, J. V., Thompson, D. A., & Jones, S. S. (2014) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.215 · Cited by 48
Adapting health promotion interventions for ethnic minority groups: a qualitative study.
Liu, J.-J., Davidson, E., Bhopal, R., White, M., Johnson, M., Netto, G., & Sheikh, A. (2016) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/dau105 · Cited by 48
Do health beliefs explain traditional medical therapies utilisation? Evidence from Ghana
Gyasi, R. M., Asante, F., Abass, K., Yeboah, J. Y., Adu‐Gyamfi, S., & Amoah, P. A. (2016) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2016.1209995 · Cited by 47
Homing in on the Social: System-Level Influences on Overly Aggressive Treatments at the End of Life
Dzeng, E. W., Dohan, D. P., Curtis, J. R., Smith, T. J., Colaianni, A., & Ritchie, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.08.019 · Cited by 47
Burchett, H., Blanchard, L., Kneale, D., & Thomas, J. (2018) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0364-3 · Cited by 47
Dilay, A., Diduck, A. P., & Patel, K. (2019) · Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal · doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1611035 · Cited by 47
Enhancing the quality and transparency of qualitative research methods in health psychology
Shaw, R. L., Bishop, F. L., Horwood, J. P., Chilcot, J., & Arden, M. A. (2019) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12393 · Cited by 47
Examining critical perspectives on Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption in New Zealand
Doan, D. T., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Naismith, N., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Zhang, T., & Tookey, J. (2020) · Smart and Sustainable Built Environment · doi:10.1108/sasbe-04-2020-0043 · Cited by 51
Cheung, M., Rylands, A., Williams, A., Bailey, K., & Bubbear, J. S. (2021) · Journal of the Endocrine Society · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvab070 · Cited by 47
Bringing Rigour in Qualitative Social Research: The Use of a CAQDAS
Rambaree, K. (2007) · DiVA (University of Gävle) · Cited by 46
Older adults’ perceptions of adherence to community physical activity groups
Hartley, S. E., & Yeowell, G. (2014) · Ageing and Society · doi:10.1017/s0144686x14000464 · Cited by 46
Richens, I. F., Hobson‐West, P., Brennan, M. L., Lowton, R., Kaler, J., & Wapenaar, W. (2015) · Veterinary Record · doi:10.1136/vr.103415 · Cited by 46
The sociotechnical regime and Swedish contractor perceptions of structural frames
Hemström, K., Gustavsson, L., & Mahapatra, K. (2016) · Construction Management and Economics · doi:10.1080/01446193.2016.1245428 · Cited by 46
Schmid, L., Gläßel, A., & Schuster‐Amft, C. (2016) · Stroke Research and Treatment · doi:10.1155/2016/6210508 · Cited by 46
Law, E., Levesque, J. V., Lambert, S., & Girgis, A. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209436 · Cited by 46
Tourism and the geopolitics of Buddhist heritage in Nepal
Bhandari, K. (2019) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2018.12.006 · Cited by 46
The Governance of UK Dairy Antibiotic Use: Industry-Led Policy in Action
Begemann, S., Watkins, F., Hoyweghen, I. V., Vivancos, R., Christley, R., & Perkins, E. (2020) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.00557 · Cited by 46
Feinstein, N. W. (2012) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662512455296 · Cited by 47
The Effect of Physicians' Long-term Use of CPOE on Their Test Management Work Practices
Callen, J. L., Westbrook, J. I., & Braithwaite, J. (2006) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2152 · Cited by 46
McDonnell, G. A., Shuk, E., & Ford, J. S. (2020) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105318769366 · Cited by 45
Grounded Theory-Based Research within Exercise Psychology: A Critical Review
Hutchison, A. J., Johnston, L., & Breckon, J. (2011) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780880903304527 · Cited by 45
Msoka, E. F., Orina, F., Sanga, E., Miheso, B., Mwanyonga, S. P., Meme, H. K., Kiula, K., Liyoyo, A., Mwebaza, I., Aturinde, A., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050911 · Cited by 45
Javed, R. T., Nasir, O., Borit, M., Vanhée, L., Zea, E., Gupta, S., Vinuesa, R., & Qadir, J. (2022) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13550 · Cited by 46
The Australian Cancer and Sexuality Study Team, Perz, J., & Ussher, J. M. (2015) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1638-6 · Cited by 45
Gault, I. (2009) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00847.x · Cited by 46
Multidisciplinary care plans for diabetes: how are they used?
Shortus, T. D., McKenzie, S. H., Kemp, L., Proudfoot, J. G., & Harris, M. (2007) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01144.x · Cited by 45
Quality of feedback following performance assessments: does assessor expertise matter?
Govaerts, M., van de Wiel, M. W. J., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2013) · European journal of training and development · doi:10.1108/03090591311293310 · Cited by 45
Delayed antibiotic prescriptions: what are the experiences and attitudes of physicians and patients?
Arroll, B., Goodyear‐Smith, F., R.Thomas, D., & Kerse, N. M. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 45
Chinese and South Asian Religious Institutions and HIV Prevention in New York City
Chin, J. J., Mantell, J. E., Weiss, L., Bhagavan, M., & Luo, X. (2005) · AIDS Education and Prevention · doi:10.1521/aeap.2005.17.5.484 · Cited by 45
Early clinical experience: do students learn what we expect?
Helmich, E., Bolhuis, S. M., Laan, R., & Koopmans, R. T. C. M. (2011) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03932.x · Cited by 44
Family physicians' perspectives on practice guidelines related to cancer control
Zitzelsberger, L., Grunfeld, E., & Graham, I. D. (2004) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-5-25 · Cited by 44
Development of a Chronic Care Model for Neurological Conditions (CCM-NC)
Jaglal, S. B., Guilcher, S. J. T., Bereket, T., Kwan, M., Munce, S., Conklin, J., Versnel, J., Packer, T. L., Verrier, M. C., Marras, C., et al. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-409 · Cited by 44
Skillman, M., Cross‐Barnet, C., Singer, R., Ruiz, S., Rotondo, C., Ahn, R., Snyder, L. P., Colligan, E. M., Giuriceo, K. D., & Moiduddin, A. (2016) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12622 · Cited by 44
Ngure, K., Kimemia, G. W., Dew, K. N., Njuguna, N., Mugo, N., Celum, C., Baeten, J. M., & Heffron, R. A. (2017) · Journal of the International AIDS Society · doi:10.7448/ias.20.2.21309 · Cited by 44
Challenges and insights in inter-organizational collaborative healthcare networks
Mervyn, K., Amoo, N., & Malby, R. (2019) · International journal of organizational analysis · doi:10.1108/ijoa-05-2018-1415 · Cited by 44
The use and abuse of safety indicators in construction
Oswald, D., Zhang, R., Lingard, H., Pirzadeh, P., & Le, T. (2018) · Engineering Construction and Architectural Management · doi:10.1108/ecam-07-2017-0121 · Cited by 40
Perspectives on preventing musculoskeletal injuries in nurses: A qualitative study
Richardson, A., Gurung, G., Derrett, S., & Harcombe, H. (2019) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.272 · Cited by 44
Bilardi, J., Hulme-Chambers, A., Chen, M. Y., Fairley, C. K., Huffam, S., & Tomnay, J. E. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224616 · Cited by 44
Protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation: ICU physicians’ views
Blackwood, B., Wilson‐Barnett, J., & Trinder, J. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03165.x · Cited by 44
Help-seeking Response to Subjective Memory Complaints in Older Adults: Toward a Conceptual Model
Begum, A., Whitley, R., Banerjee, S., Matthews, D., Stewart, R. J., & Morgan, C. (2012) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gns083 · Cited by 44
Walter, F. M. (2002) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/19.6.579 · Cited by 44
Maudsley, G., Williams, E. M. I., & Taylor, D. (2007) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9056-9 · Cited by 43
Validation of the extended ICF core set for stroke from the patient perspective using focus groups
Gläßel, A., Coenen, M., Kollerits, B., & Cieza, A. (2011) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.593680 · Cited by 47
Medication Management: The Macrocognitive Workflow of Older Adults With Heart Failure
Mickelson, R. S., Unertl, K. M., & Holden, R. J. (2016) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/humanfactors.6338 · Cited by 43
Radley, A., Melville, K., Easton, P., Williams, B., & Dillon, J. F. (2016) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdw138 · Cited by 43
Medication adherence: staying within the boundaries of safety
Mickelson, R. S., & Holden, R. J. (2017) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1301574 · Cited by 43
Creation of ICT-Based Social Start-Ups in Iran: A Multiple Case Study
Salamzadeh, A., Arasti, Z., & Elyasi, G. M. (2017) · Journal of Enterprising Culture · doi:10.1142/s0218495817500042 · Cited by 43
McCaughan, D., Roman, E., Smith, A. G., Garry, A. C., Johnson, M. J., Patmore, R. D., Howard, M. R., & Howell, D. A. (2019) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216318824525 · Cited by 43
Tan, R. K. J., Kaur, N., Kumar, P. A., Tay, E., Leong, A. W. Y., Chen, M. I.-C., & Wong, C. S. (2019) · Culture Health & Sexuality · doi:10.1080/13691058.2019.1596313 · Cited by 44
Pilkington, H., Mayombo, J., Aubouy, N., & Deloron, P. (2004) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2003.016089 · Cited by 43
Reliability assessments in qualitative health promotion research
Cook, K. (2011) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/dar027 · Cited by 55
Menear, M., Reinharz, D., Corbière, M., Houle, N., Lanctôt, N., Goering, P. N., Goldner, E. M., Kirsh, B. H., & Lecomte, T. (2011) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.005 · Cited by 42
No matter how I think, it already hurts
Yang, X. (2015) · Journal of Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1177/1744629515577909 · Cited by 42
Patients’ psychosocial experiences of attending Specialist Palliative Day Care: A systematic review
Bradley, S. E., Frizelle, D., & Johnson, M. J. (2011) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216310389222 · Cited by 42
‘Consumed by breathing’ – a critical interpretive meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature
Harrison, S. L., Apps, L. D., Singh, S. J., STEINER, M. C., Morgan, M. D., & Robertson, N. (2013) · Chronic Illness · doi:10.1177/1742395313493122 · Cited by 42
Mathers, J. M., Rick, C., Jenkinson, C., Garside, R., Pall, H., Mitchell, R. D., Bayliss, S. E., & Jones, L. L. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011525 · Cited by 42
Carter, B., Simons, J., Bray, L., & Arnott, J. (2016) · Pain Research and Management · doi:10.1155/2016/8617182 · Cited by 42
Interprofessional practice in different patient care settings: A qualitative exploration
DiazGranados, D., Dow, A. W., Appelbaum, N., Mazmanian, P. E., & Retchin, S. M. (2017) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2017.1383886 · Cited by 42
Psychosocial working conditions and diabetes self-management at work: A qualitative study
Loerbroks, A., Nguyen, X. Q., Vu-Eickmann, P., Krichbaum, M., Kulzer, B., Icks, A., & Angerer, P. (2018) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2018.03.023 · Cited by 42
DeYoung, S. E., Sutton, J. N., Farmer, A. K., Neal, D. M., & Nichols, K. A. (2019) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101078 · Cited by 42
Cultural ecosystem services and the well-being of refugee communities
Marquina, T. G., Gould, R. K., & Coleman, K. (2019) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101036 · Cited by 42
Bunn, F., Trivedi, D. P., Alderson, P., Hamilton, L. K., Martin, A. E., Pinkney, E., & Iliffe, S. (2015) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta19280 · Cited by 42
Can welfare-rights advice targeted at older people reduce social exclusion?
Moffatt, S. M., & Scambler, G. (2008) · Ageing and Society · doi:10.1017/s0144686x08007253 · Cited by 42
Manski-Nankervis, J.-A., Furler, J., Blackberry, I., Young, D., O’Neal, D., & Patterson, E. (2014) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-15-20 · Cited by 41
“The purpose of this was not to reach concordance but rather to introduce different viewpoints regarding coding and interpretation of the data and to refine the coding and analysis [38].”
BackgroundWhen autocratization is reversed: episodes of U-Turns since 1900
Nord, M., Angiolillo, F., Lundstedt, M., Wiebrecht, F., & Lindberg, S. I. (2025) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2024.2448742 · Cited by 44
Medical students’ emotional development in early clinical experience: a model
Helmich, E., Bolhuis, S. M., Laan, R., Dornan, T., & Koopmans, R. T. C. M. (2013) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-013-9477-1 · Cited by 43
DeCamp, L. R., Kieffer, E. C., Zickafoose, J. S., DeMonner, S. M., Valbuena, F. M., Davis, M. M., & Heisler, M. (2012) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10995-012-0951-9 · Cited by 41
Natural resource manager perceptions of agency performance on climate change
Lemieux, C. J., Thompson, J., Dawson, J., & Schuster, R. M. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.014 · Cited by 41
Cancer-Related Disclosure Among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study
Barnett, M. E., Shuk, E., Conway, F. P., & Ford, J. S. (2014) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1089/jayao.2013.0043 · Cited by 41
Living Life After Traumatic Brain Injury: Phase 1 of a Longitudinal Qualitative Study
McPherson, K., Fadyl, J. K., Theadom, A., Channon, A., Levack, W., Starkey, N. J., Wilkinson‐Meyers, L., & Kayes, N. M. (2017) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000321 · Cited by 41
Tiwari, G. K., Singh, A. K., Parihar, P., Pandey, R., Sharma, D. N., & Rai, P. K. (2021) · The Educational and Developmental Psychologist · doi:10.1080/20590776.2021.1899749 · Cited by 41
Victims’ perceptions of a new model of sexual assault investigation adopted by Victoria Police
Powell, M. B., & Cauchi, R. (2011) · Police Practice and Research · doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.641376 · Cited by 41
Health visitors’ assessments of parent–child relationships: A focus group study
Wilson, P., Barbour, R. S., Graham, C., Currie, M., Puckering, C., & Minnis, H. (2007) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.07.006 · Cited by 43
Self-citationWoods, S. E., Springett, J., Porcellato, L. A., & Dugdill, L. (2005) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyh027 · Cited by 43
The Experience of China-Educated Nurses Working in Australia: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective
Zhou, Y. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108143 · Cited by 47
Nyhof, B. B., Jameel, B., Dunn, S., Grace, S. L., Khanlou, N., Stewart, D. E., & Gagliardi, A. R. (2020) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.008 · Cited by 40
Ducat, W., Martin, P., Kumar, S., Burge, V., & Abernathy, L. (2015) · Australian Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/ajr.12192 · Cited by 40
Hing, N., Nuske, E., Gainsbury, S., Russell, A. M. T., & Breen, H. M. (2016) · International Gambling Studies · doi:10.1080/14459795.2016.1171888 · Cited by 40
George, A., Blaauw, D., Green-Thompson, L. P., Hajinicolaou, C., Lala, N., Parbhoo, K., Rodda, J., Velaphi, S., Kala, U. K., Vallabh, P., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0164-z · Cited by 40
Parker, L.-S., Topcu, G., Boos, D. D., & das Nair, R. (2020) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1741698 · Cited by 41
Health visiting: the public health role
SMITH, M. A. R. (2003) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02856.x · Cited by 40
Towards participatory integrated valuation and modelling of ecosystem services under land-use change
Fontaine, C., Dendoncker, N., Vreese, R. D., Jacquemin, I., Marek, A., Herzele, A. V., Devillet, G., Mortelmans, D., & François, L. (2013) · Journal of Land Use Science · doi:10.1080/1747423x.2013.786150 · Cited by 40
Differentiating customer engaging behavior by targeted benefits – an empirical study
Braun, C., Batt, V., Bruhn, M., & Hadwich, K. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-02-2016-1711 · Cited by 43
Gagliardi, A. R., Webster, F., & Straus, S. E. (2015) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0863-7 · Cited by 39
Wøien, H., & Bjørk, I. T. (2012) · Intensive and Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2012.11.003 · Cited by 39
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
