The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Open accessAbstract
The issues surrounding the use and nature of the term 'validity' in qualitative research are controversial and many. In this paper, the author attempts to establish that 'validity' is not a single, fixed or universal concept, but rather a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in the processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and projects. The first section of this work deals with the problems faced in defining 'validity' in both quantitative and qualitative research methods and will briefly review other authors' attempts to categorise it. The work will then proceed to distinguish and compare the claims to 'validity' made by quantitative and qualitative researchers, highlighting similarities and differences as they emerge. Finally, an attempt will be made to establish that an understanding of nature of 'truth' is central to any theorisation of 'validity.' It will become clear that it is the affiliations of methodologies, concerning truth, that generate varying notions of 'validity.'
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1980) · Cited by 22,286
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Foucault, M. (1970) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901847000900108 · Cited by 10,859
(2014) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research · doi:10.4135/9781446294406.n148 · Cited by 7,250
Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2012) · Cited by 5,975
Neufeld, A., & Ryan, A. G. (1988) · Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation · doi:10.3138/cjpe.3.006 · Cited by 5,913
Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research
Maxwell, J. (1992) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 · Cited by 2,951 · cited 7×
“(Maxwell, 1992, p. 287) This measure of 'validity' that Maxwell offers should be approached with some caution.”
BackgroundInfluentialHandbook of ethological methods
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-4483 · Cited by 1,720
Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies
Mishler, E. (1990) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.60.4.n4405243p6635752 · Cited by 1,004
British Educational Research Journal
(2013) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/(issn)1469-3518 · Cited by 971
Cited by
Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research
Tracy, S. J. (2010) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 · Cited by 7,536
Cypress, B. S. (2017) · Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253 · Cited by 767
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Reitsma, J. B., Rutjes, A. W. S., Khan, K. S., Coomarasamy, A., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 · Cited by 405
Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two traditions
Carminati, L. (2018) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732318788379 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Winter, G.
- Venue
- The Qualitative Report
- Publisher
- Nova Southeastern University
- Published
- 2000-03-01
- ISSN
- 1052-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-3715
- OpenAlex
- W886883501
- Cited by
- 592
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 13.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.46743/2160-3715/2000.2078
- The paper
- Winter, G. (2000). A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2000.2078
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.
