The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods and Meanings: Credibility and Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research
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).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning (2018) · cites this paper as Cope 2014
Citations
Cites
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Londoño Fernández, J. L. (1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80230-0 · Cited by 5,754
Nursing Research Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice
Timmins, F. (2013) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2013.04.001 · Cited by 5,510
The problem of rigor in qualitative research
Sandelowski, M. (1986) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005 · Cited by 2,772 · cited 3×
“A qualitative study is considered credible if the descriptions of human experience are immediately recognized by individuals that share the same experience (Sandelowski, 1986).”
BackgroundInfluentialQualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109 · Cited by 2,715
Validity in qualitative research
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973201129119299 · Cited by 2,144
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x · Cited by 1,601
Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail
Koch, T. (1994) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01177.x · Cited by 1,127
Rigour in qualitative case-study research
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326 · Cited by 813
Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x · Cited by 618
Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail
Koch, T. (2006) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03681.x · Cited by 360
Issues in using methodological triangulation in research
Casey, D., & Murphy, K. (2009) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2009.07.16.4.40.c7160 · Cited by 217
Rigour in qualitative research: mechanisms for control
Ryan-Nicholls, K. D., & Will, C. (2009) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2009.04.16.3.70.c6947 · Cited by 149
The inclusion of bias in reflective and reflexive research
Mantzoukas, S. (2005) · Journal of research in nursing · doi:10.1177/174498710501000305 · Cited by 107
Vishnevsky, T., & Beanlands, H. J. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 35
An Exploration of the Patient Navigator Role: Perspectives of Younger Women With Breast Cancer
Pedersen, A. E., Hack, T. F., McClement, S., & Taylor‐Brown, J. (2013) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/14.onf.77-88 · Cited by 33
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning
Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8 · Cited by 521
Wirihana, L., Welch, A., Williamson, M. J., Christensen, M., Bakon, S., & Craft, J. A. (2018) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr.2018.e1516 · Cited by 296
Saab, M. M., Hegarty, J., Murphy, D., & Landers, M. (2021) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105045 · Cited by 249
Criteria for assessing and ensuring the trustworthiness in qualitative research
Kakar, Z. U. H., Rasheed, R., Rashid, A., & Akhter, S. (2023) · International Journal of Business Reflections · doi:10.56249/ijbr.03.01.44 · Cited by 209
Pype, P. F., Mertens, F., Helewaut, F., & Krystallidou, D. (2018) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3392-3 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Cope, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cope, Diane G.
- Venue
- Oncology Nursing Forum
- Publisher
- Oncology Nursing Society (ONS)
- 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
- 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
