The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Open accessAbstract
The use of reliability and validity are common in quantitative research and now it is reconsidered in the qualitative research paradigm. Since reliability and validity are rooted in positivist perspective then they should be redefined for their use in a naturalistic approach. Like reliability and validity as used in quantitative research are providing springboard to examine what these two terms mean in the qualitative research paradigm, triangulation as used in quantitative research to test the reliability and validity can also illuminate some ways to test or maximize the validity and reliability of a qualitative study. Therefore, reliability, validity and triangulation, if they are relevant research concepts, particularly from a qualitative point of view, have to be redefined in order to reflect the multiple ways of establishing truth.
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
Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 · Cited by 9,184
Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research
Maxwell, J. (1992) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 · Cited by 2,951
Quality in Qualitative Research
Seale, C. (1999) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/107780049900500402 · Cited by 1,743
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412985659 · Cited by 1,462
Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own
Stenbacka, C. (2001) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/eum0000000005801 · Cited by 742
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
Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 · Cited by 1,990
Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021 · Cited by 1,281
Cypress, B. S. (2017) · Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253 · Cited by 767
Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review
Bacchelli, A., & Bird, C. (2013) · 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606617 · Cited by 650
Metadata
- Authors
- Golafshani, N.
- Venue
- The Qualitative Report
- Publisher
- Nova Southeastern University
- Published
- 2015-01-23
- ISSN
- 1052-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-3715
- OpenAlex
- W2113537253
- Cited by
- 5,157
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2487.81
- 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: Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
- The paper
- Golafshani, N. (2015). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
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.
