The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Transcription Quality as an Aspect of Rigor in Qualitative Research
Abstract
The importance of ensuring that interview or focus group transcripts are close to "verbatim" accounts of what transpired is widely acknowledged, but seems more often a tacit assumption than an empirically verified assertion. In fact, there appears to have been rather little discussion in the literature regarding the need to routinely review the quality of transcripts before undertaking the analysis of textual data in qualitative research. Establishing the trustworthiness of the transcripts would appear to be a fundamental component of rigor in qualitative research, although it is rarely mentioned in this context. In this article, several potential sources and types of threats to transcrip tion quality are reviewed. A number of suggestions are made for minimizing (avoiding, detecting, and remedying) these, although it is acknowledged that "error" itselfis socially constructed and open to multiple interpretations. It is suggested that an assessment of the trustworthiness of transcripts be routine practice in qualitative research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543052001031 · Cited by 1,740
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412985659 · Cited by 1,462
Ten Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research Proposals
Cobb, A. K., & Hagemaster, J. N. (1987) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/0148-4834-19870401-04 · Cited by 94
Cited by
A rose by any other name: participants choosing research pseudonyms
Allen, R. E. S., & Wiles, J. L. (2016) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2015.1133746 · Cited by 298
Focus group research and “the patient's view”
Lehoux, P., Poland, B., & Daudelin, G. (2006) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.016 · Cited by 278
Self-citationGreen, C. A., Duan, N., Gibbons, R. D., Hoagwood, K. E., Palinkas, L. A., & Wisdom, J. P. (2015) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-014-0552-6 · Cited by 205
How, When and Why People Seek Health Information Online: Qualitative Study in Hong Kong
Chu, J. T., Wang, M. P., Shen, C., Viswanath, K., Lam, T. H., & Chan, S. S. C. (2017) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/ijmr.7000 · Cited by 181
“As recommended by Poland [26], a random small sample of transcript from each focus group was reviewed.”
MethodGarza, R. (2009) · Urban Education · doi:10.1177/0042085908318714 · Cited by 155
Metadata
- Authors
- Poland, B. D.
- Venue
- Qualitative Inquiry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 290-310
- ISSN
- 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7565
- OpenAlex
- W2058298356
- Cited by
- 606
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.