CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,395Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Education and ValidationComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness

Open access
Elo, Satu, Kääriäinen, Maria, Kanste, Outi, Pölkki, Tarja, Utriainen, Kati, Kyngäs, Helvi·2014·Sage Open
DOI 10.1177/2158244014522633
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Qualitative content analysis is commonly used for analyzing qualitative data. However, few articles have examined the trustworthiness of its use in nursing science studies. The trustworthiness of qualitative content analysis is often presented by using terms such as credibility, dependability, conformability, transferability, and authenticity. This article focuses on trustworthiness based on a review of previous studies, our own experiences, and methodological textbooks. Trustworthiness was described for the main qualitative content analysis phases from data collection to reporting of the results. We concluded that it is important to scrutinize the trustworthiness of every phase of the analysis process, including the preparation, organization, and reporting of results. Together, these phases should give a reader a clear indication of the overall trustworthiness of the study. Based on our findings, we compiled a checklist for researchers attempting to improve the trustworthiness of a content analysis study. The discussion in this article helps to clarify how content analysis should be reported in a valid and understandable manner, which would be of particular benefit to reviewers of scientific articles. Furthermore, we discuss that it is often difficult to evaluate the trustworthiness of qualitative content analysis studies because of defective data collection method description and/or analysis description.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2158244014522633

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Three coders with a minimum of two years of affirmative group experience with LGBTQ+ youth used content analysis to code the assignments.

    “Three coders with a minimum of two years of affirmative group experience with LGBTQ+ youth used content analysis (Elo et al., 2014) to code the assignments.”

    From Demonstrating LGBTQ+ Affirmative Practice in Groups:: Developing Competence through Simulation-Based Learning (2022) · cites this paper as Elo et al., 2014

  • Thoughts and observations were noted throughout the analysis and perspectives and interpretations were discussed during team meetings to support a comprehensive reflexive process.

    “Acknowledging the subjective nature of the analytic process, thoughts and observations were noted throughout the analysis and perspectives and interpretations were discussed during team meetings to support a comprehensive reflexive process [20].”

    From Facilitators and barriers to social distancing for young people during the COVID-19 pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Oulu (FI)
  • Oulu University Hospital (FI)
  • Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FI)
Corresponding author
Elo, Satu
ORCID
Venue
Sage Open
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-01-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
2158-2440 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2158244014522633
OpenAlex
W2119366833
Cited by
4,395
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 383 · 2025: 430 · 2024: 557 · 2023: 599 · 2022: 528 · 2021: 541 · 2020: 376 · 2019: 282 · 2018: 222 · 2017: 175 · 2016: 157 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
784.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • SAGE Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
qualitative content analysis, trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, conformability, transferability, authenticity, reporting checklist, nursing research methodology

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