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 801–900 of 1,005
Katoue, M. G., & Al-Taweel, D. M. (2016) · Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.18549/pharmpract.2016.02.680 · Cited by 28
Equipoise across the patient population: optimising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial
Whybrow, P., Pickard, R. S., Hrisos, S., & Rapley, T. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1711-8 · Cited by 28
Alwhaibi, R. M., & Aldugahishem, H. M. (2018) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1433241 · Cited by 28
Supporting Homeless Youth: Perspectives and Preferences
Stewart, M., Reutter, L., Letourneau, N. L., Makwarimba, E., & Hungler, K. (2010) · Journal of Poverty · doi:10.1080/10875541003711631 · Cited by 28
The nursing contribution to qualitative research in palliative care 1990–1999: a critical evaluation
Bailey, C., Froggatt, K. A., Field, D. J., & Krishnasamy, M. (2002) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02339.x · Cited by 28
Theobald, S., & Simwaka, B. N. (2008) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.015 · Cited by 28
Thompson, T. (2004) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-4 · Cited by 30
Fatigue in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy: a qualitative study of people’s experiences
Schipper, K., Bakker, M., & Abma, T. (2017) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1212109 · Cited by 27
Beaulieu-Bergeron, R., & Morin, D. (2016) · International Journal of Disability Development and Education · doi:10.1080/1034912x.2016.1144874 · Cited by 27
Proposal of a Qualitative Content Analysis Process for a Solo Researcher
Kawamoto, M., Koizumi, M., & Yoshikane, F. (2023) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libri-2022-0068 · Cited by 27
ISTAPS Study Group, Codern‐Bové, N., Ribera, E. P., Pla, M., González-Bonilla, J., Granollers, S., Moreno, J. L. B., Fanlo, G., & Cabezas, C. (2014) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1225 · Cited by 29
Ducat, W., Burge, V., & Kumar, S. (2014) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-194 · Cited by 27
Baxter, K., Wilberforce, M., & Glendinning, C. (2010) · Social Policy and Society · doi:10.1017/s1474746410000382 · Cited by 27
Nurses' perceptions of working with families in the paediatric intensive care unit
Butler, A. E., Willetts, G., & Copnell, B. (2015) · Nursing in Critical Care · doi:10.1111/nicc.12142 · Cited by 27
Violence Against Women With Disability in Mumbai, India
Daruwalla, N., Chakravarty, S., Chatterji, S., More, N. S., Alcock, G. A., Hawkes, S., & Osrin, D. (2013) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244013499144 · Cited by 27
Medication safety challenges in primary care: Nurses’ perspective
Khalil, H., & Lee, S. L. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.14353 · Cited by 27
Saré, D., Pérez, D., Somé, P., Kafando, Y., Barro, A. S., & Ridde, V. (2018) · Global Health Research and Policy · doi:10.1186/s41256-018-0078-7 · Cited by 22
Gopalan, G., Hooley, C., Winters, A. M., & Stephens, T. N. (2019) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.12309 · Cited by 27
Parent engagement and therapeutic alliance in allied health teletherapy programs
Fairweather, G. C., Lincoln, M., Ramsden, R., & Bulkeley, K. (2021) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.13235 · Cited by 27
Castellini, G., & Graffigna, G. (2022) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106179 · Cited by 28
Gender inequality and bias in Chinese universities: perceptions of male and female academics
Horta, H., & Tang, L. (2023) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2023.2197193 · Cited by 27
Lester, H. E., Birchwood, M. J., Tait, L., Shah, S., England, E., & Smith, J. (2008) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00760.x · Cited by 27
Henderson, C., O’Hara, S., Thornicroft, G., & Webber, M. (2014) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/09540261.2014.924486 · Cited by 27
Ivers, N. M., Tu, K., Francis, J., Barnsley, J. M., Shah, B. R., Upshur, R. E. G., Kiss, A., Grimshaw, J., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-98 · Cited by 29
Women’s journey of recovery from sexual assault trauma : a grounded theory - Part 2
Duma, S. E., Mekwa, J., & Denny, L. E. (2007) · Curationis · doi:10.4102/curationis.v30i4.1112 · Cited by 27
Gradinger, F., Köhler, B., Khatami, R., Mathis, J., Cieza, A., & Bassetti, C. L. (2010) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2010.00862.x · Cited by 27
Best, P., Badham, J., Corepal, R., O'Neill, R. F., Tully, M. A., Kee, F., & Hunter, R. F. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2289-5 · Cited by 33
Paramedic Pre-Employment Education and the Concerns of Our Future: What are Our Expectations?
Waxman, A., & Williams, B. A. (2006) · Australasian Journal of Paramedicine · doi:10.33151/ajp.4.4.394 · Cited by 27
Factors to consider for effective critical thinking development in auditing students
Terblanche, E. A. J., & Clercq, B. D. (2019) · South African Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1080/10291954.2019.1669293 · Cited by 32
Poulsen, R. M., Pii, K. H., Bültmann, U., Meijer, M., Eplov, L. F., Albertsen, K., & Christensen, U. (2019) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.4694 · Cited by 27
Qualitative Methodology in Cardiovascular Outcomes Research
McIlvennan, C. K., Morris, M. A., Guetterman, T. C., Matlock, D. D., & Curry, L. A. (2019) · Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.119.005828 · Cited by 34
DURUGBO, C. M., Al-Balushi, Z., Anouze, A. L., & Amoudi, O. (2020) · Supply Chain Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/scm-10-2019-0373 · Cited by 27
Smith, K. V., Rankin, H., & Ehlers, A. (2020) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008198.2020.1789325 · Cited by 27
The Impact Of Patient Suicide on Doctors and Nurses: A Critical Interpretive Meta-Synthesis
Malik, S., Gunn, S., & Robertson, N. (2021) · Archives of Suicide Research · doi:10.1080/13811118.2021.1885533 · Cited by 27
O’Callaghan, C., Dwyer, J., & Schofield, P. (2024) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2024.2347580 · Cited by 26
Schafer, R., & Phillippi, J. C. (2025) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069251315395 · Cited by 26
Fisher, J. M., Rudd, M. P., Walker, R. W., & Stewart, J. (2016) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.13875 · Cited by 26
Salvo, T., & Williams, A. C. D. C. (2017) · Transcultural Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/1363461517746315 · Cited by 32
Rocchi, M., Shi, Z., Shaw, R. B., McBride, C. B., & Sweet, S. N. (2021) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2021.1890729 · Cited by 26
Introduction to Special Issue Quality in Qualitative Approaches: Celebrating Heterogeneity
Lester, J. N., & O’Reilly, M. J. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2021.1931734 · Cited by 26
The family-focused practice of primary care clinicians: a case of missed opportunities
Reupert, A., Maybery, D. J., & Morgan, B. S. (2015) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.3109/09638237.2014.998803 · Cited by 26
The challenge of relationships and fidelity: Home visitors' perspectives
Barak, A., Spielberger, J., & Gitlow, E. R. (2014) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.023 · Cited by 26
Nelson, A., Macdonald, D., & Abbott, R. A. (2012) · Health Risk & Society · doi:10.1080/13698575.2012.680949 · Cited by 26
Managing in the Contemporary World
Muganyizi, P. S., Nyström, L., Axemo, P., & Emmelin, M. (2011) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260510393006 · Cited by 26
Garside, M. J., Fisher, J. M., Blundell, A. G., & Gordon, A. L. (2016) · Gerontology & Geriatrics Education · doi:10.1080/02701960.2016.1165217 · Cited by 26
Testing the Community-Based Learning Collaborative (CBLC) implementation model: a study protocol
Hanson, R. F., Schoenwald, S. K., Saunders, B. E., Chapman, J. E., Palinkas, L. A., Moreland, A. D., & Dopp, A. R. (2016) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/s13033-016-0084-4 · Cited by 26
Odnoletkova, I., Buysse, H. E. C., Nobels, F. R. E., Goderis, G., Aertgeerts, B., Annemans, L., & Ramaekers, D. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0383-3 · Cited by 26
QPLAN: Decision support for evaluating planning quality in software development projects
Féris, M. A. A., Zwikael, O., & Gregor, S. D. (2017) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.02.008 · Cited by 26
Mothers’ Decisions to Disclose or Conceal Their Child’s Mental Health Disorder
Eaton, K., Ohan, J. L., Stritzke, W. G. K., Courtauld, H. M., & Corrigan, P. W. (2017) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732317697096 · Cited by 26
Medication management strategies used by older adults with heart failure: A systems-based analysis
Mickelson, R. S., & Holden, R. J. (2017) · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1177/1474515117730704 · Cited by 26
Booth, A. (2018) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732318808247 · Cited by 29
Collins, J. C. (2017) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/1523422317695227 · Cited by 26
Bakker, M., Schipper, K., Geurts, A. C., & Abma, T. A. (2017) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2016.1172673 · Cited by 25
Supervisory conversations on rigour and interpretive research
Whiteley, A. M. (2012) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.1108/14439881211248383 · Cited by 50
Ellem, K., Smith, L., Baidawi, S., McGhee, A., & Dowse, L. (2020) · Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal · doi:10.1007/s10560-020-00651-x · Cited by 30
Cimino, S. R., Hitzig, S. L., Craven, B. C., Bassett-Gunter, R. L., Li, J., & Guilcher, S. J. T. (2020) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1861485 · Cited by 29
Park, H., Lee, Y., Ho, M., & Han, H. C. (2021) · Korean journal of medical education · doi:10.3946/kjme.2021.187 · Cited by 25
McCaughan, D., Roman, E., Smith, A. G., Patmore, R. D., & Howell, D. A. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050816 · Cited by 25
Kountanis, J. A., Kirk, R., Handelzalts, J. E., Jester, J. M., Kirk, R., & Muzik, M. (2021) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-021-01154-z · Cited by 25
Sachs, A. L., Tharrey, M., Darmon, N., Alaimo, K., Boshara, A. I., Beavers, A. W., & Litt, J. (2022) · Wellbeing Space and Society · doi:10.1016/j.wss.2022.100088 · Cited by 28
Gyaurov, D., Fabricatore, C., & Bottino, A. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221128491 · Cited by 33
Anantapong, K., Davies, N., & Sampson, E. L. (2022) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afac230 · Cited by 25
Preschool Teacher Perceptions of Assistive Technology and Professional Development Responses
Stoner, J. B., Parette, H. P., Watts, E. H., Wojcik, B. W., & Fogal, T. (2008) · Education and training in developmental disabilities · doi:10.1177/215416470804300107 · Cited by 25
Incertitude, Hepatitis B, and Infant Vaccination in West and Central Africa
Giles‐Vernick, T., Traoré, A., & Baïnilago, L. (2015) · Medical Anthropology Quarterly · doi:10.1111/maq.12187 · Cited by 25
Belkora, J. K., Edlow, B. L., Aviv, C., Sepucha, K., & Esserman, L. J. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-6 · Cited by 25
Family Communication Patterns After Melanoma Diagnosis
Hay, J. L., Shuk, E., Zapolska, J., Ostroff, J. S., Goel, J. L., Brady, M. S., & Berwick, M. (2009) · Journal of Family Communication · doi:10.1080/15267430903182678 · Cited by 25
Exploring parental perspectives of participation in children with Down Syndrome
Lyons, R., Brennan, S., & Carroll, C. (2015) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/0265659015569549 · Cited by 25
Slomka, J., Prince‐Paul, M., Webel, A. R., & Daly, B. J. (2016) · Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care · doi:10.1016/j.jana.2016.02.003 · Cited by 25
Firmin, R. L., Bonfils, K. A., Luther, L., Minor, K. S., & Salyers, M. P. (2016) · Qualitative Psychology · doi:10.1037/qup0000050 · Cited by 25
McClelland, S. I., Rubin, J. D., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2016) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0361684316664514 · Cited by 32
Atherton, K., Young, B., & Salmon, P. (2017) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.12647 · Cited by 25
Factors Driving Live Discharge From Hospice: Provider Perspectives
Dolin, R., Hanson, L. C., Rosenblum, S. F., Stearns, S. C., Holmes, M., & Silberman, P. (2017) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.02.004 · Cited by 25
Qualitative research in palliative care 1990–1999: a descriptive review
Froggatt, K. A., Field, D. J., Bailey, C., & Krishnasamy, M. (2003) · International Journal of Palliative Nursing · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2003.9.3.11483 · Cited by 25
The Living with Dysarthria group for post‐stroke dysarthria: the participant voice
Mackenzie, C., Kelly, S., Paton, G., Brady, M., & Muir, M. (2013) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12017 · Cited by 24
Assessing computational thinking in the social studies
Manfra, M. M., Hammond, T. C., & Coven, R. M. (2021) · Theory & Research in Social Education · doi:10.1080/00933104.2021.2003276 · Cited by 27
Kimpton, C. D., & Maynard, N. E. (2024) · European Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1080/03043797.2024.2357343 · Cited by 24
Afrashtehfar, K. I., & Bryant, S. R. (2021) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/25767 · Cited by 24
Retzer, A., Calvert, M., Ahmed, K., Keeley, T., Armes, J., Brown, J. M., Calman, L. A., Gavin, A., Glaser, A., Greenfield, D., et al. (2021) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.4111 · Cited by 26
Alhendyani, F., Jolly, K. B., & Jones, L. L. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263234 · Cited by 24
Sachs, A. L., Coringrato, E., Sprague, N. L., Turbyfill, A., Tillema, S., & Litt, J. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191711059 · Cited by 24
Creative beyond TikToks: Investigating Adolescents' Social Privacy Management on TikTok
Ebert, N., Geppert, T., Strycharz, J., Knieps, M., Honig, M. L., & Brucker-Kley, E. (2023) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.56553/popets-2023-0049 · Cited by 24
Aldamaeen, O., Rashideh, W., & Obidallah, W. J. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13137697 · Cited by 24
Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research?
van Teijlingen, E., Douglas, F., & Torrance, N. (2008) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-396 · Cited by 25
Kumar, S., & Grimmer, K. A. (2005) · Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management · doi:10.2147/tcrm.1.1.69.53596 · Cited by 24
Time for work, commuting, and parenting? Commuting parents' involvement with their children
StGeorge, J. M., & Fletcher, R. J. (2012) · Community Work & Family · doi:10.1080/13668803.2012.662802 · Cited by 24
Struggling to do what is right for the child
Carnevale, F. A., FARRELL, C. A., Cremer, R., Canouï, P., Séguret, S., Gaudreault, J., de Bérail, B., Lacroix, J., Leclerc, F., & Hubert, P. (2012) · Journal of Child Health Care · doi:10.1177/1367493511420184 · Cited by 28
Walter, J. K., DeCamp, L. R., Warrier, K. S., Murphy, T., & Keefer, P. M. (2013) · Hospital Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/hpeds.2012-0047 · Cited by 24
Factors shaping the delivery of acute inpatient stroke therapy: A narrative synthesis
Taylor, E., McKevitt, C., & Jones, F. (2015) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/16501977-1918 · Cited by 24
Living with moderate to severe renal failure from the perspective of patients
Schipper, K., van der Borg, W. E., de Jong-Camerik, J., & Abma, T. (2016) · BMC Nephrology · doi:10.1186/s12882-016-0263-1 · Cited by 24
Walker, K. K., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Soto-Rojas, A. E., Jackson, R. D., Stelzner, S. M., Galvez, L. C., Smith, G. J., Acevedo, M., Dandelet, L., & Vega, D. (2017) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0354-9 · Cited by 24
Spadola, C., Wagner, E. F., Varga, L. M., Syvertsen, J. L., Cruz-Munoz, N. F. D. L., & Messiah, S. E. (2017) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-017-3022-x · Cited by 26
Pang, P. C., Chang, S., Verspoor, K. M., & Clavisi, O. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12094 · Cited by 24
“SPECIAL” FAMILIES AND THEIR “NORMAL” DAILY LIVES: FAMILY QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
Boelsma, F., Schippers, A., Dane, M., & Abma, T. (2018) · International Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs94201818643 · Cited by 24
McCaughan, D., Roman, E., Smith, A. G., Garry, A. C., Johnson, M. J., Patmore, R. D., Howard, M. R., & Howell, D. A. (2019) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2019.02.003 · Cited by 24
Rizan, C., Montgomery, J., Ramage, C., Welch, J., & Dewhurst, G. (2019) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/0141076819831872 · Cited by 24
Managing customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) – insights from the frontline
Nicholls, R., & Mohsen, M. G. (2019) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-11-2018-0329 · Cited by 23
Pringle, J., Drummond, J. S., & McLafferty, E. (2013) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.770081 · Cited by 24
Makai, P., Perry, M., Robben, S. H., Schers, H., Heinen, M. M., Rikkert, M. G. M. O., & Melis, R. J. F. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3609 · Cited by 27
van der Meide, H., Olthuis, G. J., & Leget, C. J. W. (2014) · Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.1111/scs.12187 · Cited by 24
Foot health education for people with rheumatoid arthritis: the practitioner's perspective
Graham, A. S., Hammond, A., & Williams, A. E. (2012) · Journal of Foot and Ankle Research · doi:10.1186/1757-1146-5-2 · Cited by 24
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
