The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Basic Content Analysis
Abstract
Introduction Content Classification and Interpretation Techniques of Content Analysis Issues in Content Analysis
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
“To ensure the reliability of the content analysis, we followed two strategies. First, a small subset of textbook pages (20%) was initially analyzed to check the appropriateness of categorization as suggested by Weber [69] and Cohen [67]. Second, following Milne and Adler [100], overall findings were cross-checked after a few weeks of the primary content analysis to ensure inter-coder reliability.”
From Gender stereotypes and education: A comparative content analysis of Malaysian, Indonesian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi school textbooks (2018) · cites this paper as Weber [69]
In the citing paper
“Seemingly simple study results are a sign of incomplete analysis (Weber 1990).”
From The qualitative content analysis process (2008) · cites this paper as Weber 1990
In the citing paper
“The internal validity of content analysis can be assessed as face validity or by using agreement coefficients (Weber 1990).”
From The qualitative content analysis process (2008) · cites this paper as Weber 1990
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
The qualitative content analysis process
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x · Cited by 22,617
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772
Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244014522633 · Cited by 4,395
Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mps028 · Cited by 3,297
Metadata
- Authors
- Weber, R.
- Corresponding author
- Weber, Robert
- Venue
- Sage eBooks
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Published
- 1990
- OpenAlex
- W2016364797
- Cited by
- 7,750
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 123 · 2025: 244 · 2024: 326 · 2023: 353 · 2022: 364 · 2021: 368 · 2020: 380 · 2019: 388 · 2018: 361 · 2017: 395 · 2016: 362 · 2015: 407 · 2014: 409 · 2013: 413 · 2012: 352
- FWCI
- 23.81
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sage eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Analysis
- Keywords
- content analysis, content classification, interpretation methods
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
