Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 606

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

Poland, Blake D.·1995·Qualitative Inquiry

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/107780049500100302

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 606

Metadata

Authors
Poland, B. D.
Venue
Qualitative Inquiry
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.