The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Constant Comparative Analysis Method Outside of Grounded Theory
Open accessAbstract
This commentary addresses the gap in the literature regarding discussion of the legitimate use of Constant Comparative Analysis Method (CCA) outside of Grounded Theory. The purpose is to show the strength of using CCA to maintain the emic perspective and how theoretical frameworks can maintain the etic perspective throughout the analysis. My naturalistic inquiry model shows how conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks can be integrated when using the CCA method.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,361
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,535
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M., Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,454
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,249
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
Lewis, S. (2015) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/1524839915580941 · Cited by 22,105
The Interpretation of Cultures
Fenn, R., & Geertz, C. (1974) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.2307/1384392 · Cited by 19,154
Cited by
Murat Sahin, M. S., Linda Mason, L. M., Kayla Laserson, K. L., Kelvin Oruko, K. O., Elizabeth Nyothach, E. N., Kelly Alexander, K. A., Frank Odhiambo, F. O., Alie Eleveld, A. E., Emily Isiye, E. I., Isaac Ngere, I. N., et al. (2015) · Waterlines · doi:10.3362/1756-3488.2015.003 · Cited by 108
Pfeifer, M. A., Reiter, E. M., Cordero, J. J., & Stanton, J. D. (2021) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.20-06-0107 · Cited by 85
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Vrijhoef, H. J. M., Nieboer, M. E., Aarts, S., van der Voort, C. S., Rijnaard, M. D., & Wouters, E. J. M. (2019) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1241-9 · Cited by 84
Exploring examinee behaviours as validity evidence for multiple‐choice question examinations
Surry, L. T., Torre, D., & Durning, S. J. (2017) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13367 · Cited by 40
van Roode, T., Pauly, B. M., Marcellus, L., Strosher, H. W., Shahram, S., Dang, P., Kent, A., & MacDonald, M. (2020) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-020-01276-3 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Fram, S.
- Venue
- The Qualitative Report
- Publisher
- Nova Southeastern University
- Published
- 2015-01-14
- ISSN
- 1052-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-3715
- OpenAlex
- W2141766153
- Cited by
- 655
- References
- 97
- FWCI
- 315.73
- 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: The Constant Comparative Analysis Method Outside of Grounded Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1569
- The paper
- Fram, S. (2015). The Constant Comparative Analysis Method Outside of Grounded Theory. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1569
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.
