Cited by 812Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative research in health

Methods and Meanings: Credibility and Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research

Cope, Diane G.·2014·Oncology Nursing Forum

Abstract

Historically, qualitative research has been viewed as "soft" science and criticized for lacking scientific rigor compared to quantitative research, which uses experimental, objective methods (Mays & Pope, 1995). Common criticisms are that qualitative research is subjective, anecdotal, subject to researcher bias, and lacking generalizability by producing large quantities of detailed information about a single, unique phenomenon or setting (Koch & Harrington, 1998). However, qualitative research is not inferior research, but a different approach in studying humans. Qualitative research emphasizes exploring individual experiences, describing phenomenon, and developing theory (Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1188/14.onf.89-91

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • This study attempted to show rigour by employing a systematic procedure for data coding and thematic extraction that researchers can follow in the future.

    “In terms of our methodological contributions in this work, this study attempted to show rigour by employing a systematic procedure for data coding and thematic extraction that researchers can follow in the future (Cope 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cope, D. G.
Affiliations
Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Cope, Diane G.
Venue
Oncology Nursing Forum
Published
2013-12-24
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
89-91
ISSN
  • 0190-535X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-0688
OpenAlex
W2049605678
Cited by
812
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oncology nursing forum (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative research in health
Keywords
qualitative research credibility, trustworthiness, research rigor, researcher bias, subjectivity, generalizability, qualitative vs quantitative research, oncology nursing research
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Patient Navigation

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