A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Some authors have raised concerns that strict adherence to universal checklists may stifle the diversity and multiplicity of practices in qualitative research.

“Some authors have raised concerns about the use of such checklists and adherence to strict, universal criteria because they do not afford sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse approaches and multiple interpretive practices often represented in qualitative studies.[7][8][9][10][11]”

• cites [7] 7. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA. The problem of appraising qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2004;13:223-225 sourceSupported
• cites [8] 8. Stige B, Malterud K, Midtgarden T. Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(10):1504-16. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [9] 9. Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL. Problematics of grounded theory: Innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res. 2009;9(3):355-381. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In recent years, multiple publications have synthesized quality criteria and recommendations for use by researchers and peer reviewers, often in the form of checklists.

“In recent years, multiple publications have synthesized quality criteria and recommendations for use by researchers and peer reviewers alike, often in the form of checklists.[2][3][4][5][6]”

• cites [2] 2. Anderson C. Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010; 74(8):Article 141. sourceSupported
• cites [3] 3. Santiago-Delefosse M, Gavin A, Bruchez C, Roux P, Stephen SL. Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Soc Sci Med. 2016;148:142-51. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [4] 4. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Developing a FINER research question is critical to study rigor and quality.

“Developing a FINER research question is critical to study rigor and quality and should not be rushed, as all other aspects of research design depend on the focus and clarity of the research question(s) guiding the study.15”

• cites [15] 15. Agee J. Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2009;22(4):431-447. sourcePartly supported

  The Abstract says poorly constructed questions can affect all subsequent stages of a study, and the Conclusion says good qualitative questions shape study design and analysis. The paper supports careful development of research questions, but these passages do not establish the specific FINER framework named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Developing and refining a primary research question focused on both the phenomena of interest and the context in which it is situated is essential to research rigor and quality.

“Developing and refining a primary research question focused on both the phenomena of interest and the context in which it is situated is essential to research rigor and quality.”

• cites [15] 15. Agee J. Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2009;22(4):431-447. sourceSupported
• cites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The goal of rigor in qualitative research can be described as ensuring that the research design, method, and conclusions are explicit, public, replicable, open to critique, and free of bias.

“The goal of rigor in qualitative research can be described as ensuring that the research design, method, and conclusions are explicit, public, replicable, open to critique, and free of bias.41”

• cites [41] 41. Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324. sourcePartly supported

  The 'Overall Criteria for Quality in Qualitative Research' section supports making the design, methods, and conclusions transparent and systematic; the paper also discusses appraisal of their quality. But the 'Reliability' section says exact replicability is counter-intuitive for qualitative research, and 'Nature of Qualitative Research versus Quantitative Research' treats subjectivity as an essential element rather than something to eliminate as bias. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Inclusion of best practice methods for assuring the rigor and trustworthiness of results is critical to study design.

“Although researchers can employ great flexibility in the selection of study methods, inclusion of best practice methods for assuring the rigor and trustworthiness of results is critical to study design.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Given the unique and often highly sensitive nature of data being collected by the researcher, trustworthiness is an essential component of the researcher-participant relationship.

“Given the unique and often highly sensitive nature of data being collected by the researcher, trustworthiness is an essential component of the researcher-participant relationship.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The conceptual framework contributes directly to determining sample definitions, size, and recruitment of participants.

“The conceptual framework contributes directly to determining sample definitions, size, and recruitment of participants.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Other considerations related to sampling bias may impact the quantity and quality of data generated and therefore the quality of the study result.

“In addition to defining the sample and selecting participants, other considerations related to sampling bias may impact the quantity and quality of data generated and therefore the quality of the study result.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Given the unique and often highly sensitive nature of data being collected by the researcher, trustworthiness is an essential component of the researcher-participant relationship.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Ringsted, Hodges, and Sherpbier describe three essential parts to an effective conceptual framework: theories and/or concepts and principles relevant to the phenomenon of interest; what is known and unknown from prior work, observations, and examples; and the researcher's observations, ideas, and suppositions regarding the research problem statement and question.

“Ringsted, Hodges, and Sherpbier describe three essential parts to an effective conceptual framework: theories and/ or concepts and principles relevant to the phenomenon of interest; what is known and unknown from prior work, observations, and examples; and the researcher's observations, ideas, and suppositions regarding the research problem statement and question.21”

• cites [21] 21. Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. "The research compass": an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 56. Med Teach. 2011;33(9):695-709. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff identified six criteria applicable to assessing the quality of scholarship.

“Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff identified six criteria applicable to assessing the quality of scholarship.18,19”

• cites [18] 18. Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI, Boyer EL. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997.Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites [19] 19. Glassick CE. Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med. 2000;75(9):877-880. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

By being transparent in the process and reporting of results when saturation may not have been possible, the resulting data may still contribute to the field and to further inquiry.

“By being transparent in the process and reporting of results when saturation may not have been possible, the resulting data may still contribute to the field and to further inquiry.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Any of these factors could potentially change the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the study participants and influence the trustworthiness of data collected or the study result.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The 2015 second edition of the Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts and work by Ravitch and colleagues provide specific guidance for applying the conceptual framework to each stage of the research process to enhance rigor and quality.

“The 2015 second edition of the Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts 14 and work by Ravitch and colleagues 23,24 provide specific guidance for applying the conceptual framework to each stage of the research process to enhance rigor and quality.”

• cites [14] 14. Durning SJ, Carline J, eds. Review criteria for research manuscripts, 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [23] 23. Ravitch S, Carl N. Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2016.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [24] 24. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Any of these factors could potentially change the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the study participants and influence the trustworthiness of data collected or the study result.

“Any of these factors could potentially change the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the study participants and influence the trustworthiness of data collected or the study result.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Interview protocols and structure are often modified or refined, based on concurrent data collection and analysis processes to support or refute preliminary interpretations and refine focus and continuing inquiry.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Interview methods range from highly structured to increase dependability or completely open-ended to allow for interviewers to clarify a participant's response for increased credibility and confirmability.

“Interview methods range from highly structured to increase dependability or completely open-ended to allow for interviewers to clarify a participant's response for increased credibility and confirmability.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Member checking, a common standard of rigor, is a practice to increase study credibility and confirmability that involves asking a research subject to verify the transcription of an interview.

“Member checking, a common standard of rigor, is a practice to increase study credibility and confirmability that involves asking a research subject to verify the transcription of an interview.1,16,28”

• cites [1] 1. Denzin, Norman, Lincoln YS. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2011.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [28] 28. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size, but it does not apply to all study designs.

“Though data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size, it does not apply to all study designs.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: By being transparent in the process and reporting of results when saturation may not have been possible, the resulting data may still contribute to the field and to further inquiry.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Sampling design in qualitative research is not random but defined purposively to include the most appropriate participants in the most appropriate context for answering the research question.

“Therefore, sampling design in qualitative research is not random but defined purposively to include the most appropriate participants in the most appropriate context for answering the research question.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Lincoln and Guba outline four criteria for establishing the overall trustworthiness of qualitative research results: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability.

“Lincoln and Guba outline four criteria for establishing the overall trustworthiness of qualitative research results: credibility, the researcher ensures and imparts to the reader supporting evidence that the results accurately represent what was studied; transferability, the researcher provides detailed contextual information such that readers can determine whether the results are applicable to”

• cites [27] 27. Guba E, Lincoln Y. Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Lingard describes four types of unknowns to pursue during literature review: what no one knows; what is not yet well understood; what controversy or conflicting results, understandings, or perspectives exist; and what are unproven assumptions.

“Lingard describes four types of unknowns to pursue during literature review: what no one knows; what is not yet well understood; what controversy or conflicting results, understandings, or perspectives exist; and what are unproven assumptions.22”

• cites [22] 22. Lingard L. Writing an effective literature review. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(1):47-49.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Interview protocols and structure are often modified or refined, based on concurrent data collection and analysis processes to support or refute preliminary interpretations and refine focus and continuing inquiry.

“Regardless, interview protocols and structure are often modified or refined, based on concurrent data collection and analysis processes to support or refute preliminary interpretations and refine focus and continuing inquiry.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study.

“In other instances, attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Developing a well-integrated conceptual framework is essential to establishing a research topic based upon a thorough and integrated review of relevant literature.

“Developing a well-integrated conceptual framework is essential to establishing a research topic based upon a thorough and integrated review of relevant literature (addressing Glassick criteria #1 and #2: clear purpose and adequate preparation).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The number of participants available for inclusion in a sample may be small and some risk of not reaching data saturation may be unavoidable.

“Conversely, the number of participants available for inclusion in a sample may be small and some risk of not reaching data saturation may be unavoidable.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Quality criteria for assessing a study's problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question include: introduction builds a logical case and provides context for the problem statement; problem statement is clear and well-articulated; conceptual framework is explicit and justified; research purpose and/or question is clearly stated; and constructs being investigated are clearly presented

“Quality criteria for assessing a study's problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question include the following: introduction builds a logical case and provides context for the problem statement; problem statement is clear and well-articulated; conceptual framework is explicit and justified; research purpose and/or question is clearly stated; and constructs being investigated are”

• cites [14] 14. Durning SJ, Carline J, eds. Review criteria for research manuscripts, 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [24] 24. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [25] 25. Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Recent contributions from Ravitch and colleagues present best practices in developing frameworks for conceptual and methodological coherence within a study design, regardless of the research approach.

“Recent contributions from Ravitch and colleagues present best practices in developing frameworks for conceptual and methodological coherence within a study design, regardless of the research approach.23,24”

• cites [23] 23. Ravitch S, Carl N. Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2016.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [24] 24. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The development of a strong conceptual framework facilitates selection of appropriate study methods to minimize the bias inherent in qualitative studies and help readers to trust the research and the researcher.

“The development of a strong conceptual framework facilitates selection of appropriate study methods to minimize the bias inherent in qualitative studies and help readers to trust the research and the researcher (see 23 Glassick criteria #3 in Table 1).”

May combine two claims.

Convenience sampling, using the most accessible research participants, is the least rigorous approach to defining a study sample and may result in low accuracy, poor representativeness, low credibility, and lack of transferability of study results.

“Convenience sampling, using the most accessible research participants, is the least rigorous approach to defining a study sample and may result in low accuracy, poor representativeness, low credibility, and lack of transferability of study results.”

• cites [29] 29. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13(6):522-525. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The first two Glassick criteria, clear purpose and adequate preparation, are directly related to formulating effective research questions and a strong conceptual framework.

“The first two criteria, clear purpose and adequate preparation, are directly related to formulating effective research questions and a strong conceptual framework.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Reflexivity, the idea that a researcher's preconceptions and biases can influence decisions and actions throughout qualitative research activities, is a critical aspect of rigor even at the earliest stages of the study.

“Reflexivity, the idea that a researcher's preconceptions and biases can influence decisions and actions throughout qualitative research activities, is a critical aspect of rigor even at the earliest stages of the study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

As in any research paradigm, the goal of quality and rigor in qualitative research is to minimize the risk of bias and maximize the accuracy and credibility of research results.

“As in any research paradigm, the goal of quality and rigor in qualitative research is to minimize the risk of bias and maximize the accuracy and credibility of research results.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The SRQR framework provides detailed explanations of what should be reported in each of 21 sections of a qualitative research manuscript.

“This framework provides detailed explanations of what should be reported in each of 21 sections of a qualitative research manuscript.”

• cites [4] 4. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Beginning the study with a well-developed conceptual framework and active use of both researcher reflexivity and rigorous peer review during study implementation can drive both study rigor and quality.

“Beginning the study with a well-developed conceptual framework and active use of both researcher reflexivity and rigorous peer review during study implementation can drive both study rigor and quality.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

It is vital to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study that the author disclose and explore negative cases (competing or controversial theories) that emerge during data collection or analysis.

“Should any competing or controversial theories emerge during data collection or analysis, it is vital to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study that the author disclose and explore those negative cases.”

• cites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Data triangulation is used to identify convergence of data obtained through multiple data sources and methods to avoid or minimize error or bias and optimize accuracy in data collection and analysis processes.

“Data triangulation is used to identify convergence of data obtained through multiple data sources and methods (eg, observation field notes and interview transcripts) to avoid or minimize error or bias and optimize accuracy in data collection and analysis processes.33,35,36”

• cites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [35] 35. Creswell J, Miller D. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 2000;39(3):124-130. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [36] 36. Johnson RB. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education. 1997;118(2):282.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The peer reviewer offers a critique of the study methods and validation of the conclusions drawn by the author as a thorough check on researcher bias.

“The peer reviewer offers a critique of the study methods and validation of the conclusions drawn by the author as a thorough check on researcher bias.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A study's conceptual framework is critical to achieving rigor and quality and provides guidance in developing predetermined notions or plans for what to observe, how to record, and how to minimize the influence of potential bias.

“A study's conceptual framework is critical to achieving rigor and quality and provides guidance in developing predetermined notions or plans for what to observe, how to record, and how to minimize the influence of potential bias.34”

• cites [34] 34. Mulhall A. In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(3):306-313. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

To ensure dependability, the research method must be reported in detail such that the reader can determine proper research practices have been followed and that future researchers can repeat the study.

“To ensure dependability, the research method must be reported in detail such that the reader can determine proper research practices have been followed and that future researchers can repeat the study.40”

• cites [40] 40. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63-75. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The use of best practices applying to data collection and data analysis facilitates the full examination of data relative to the study purpose and research question and helps to prevent premature closure of the study.

“The use of best practices applying to data collection and data analysis facilitates the full examination of data relative to the study purpose and research question and helps to prevent premature closure of the study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Rigor is best achieved through thoughtful and deliberate planning, diligent and ongoing application of researcher reflexivity, and honest communication between the researcher and the audience regarding the study and its results.

“Rigor is best achieved through thoughtful and deliberate planning, diligent and ongoing application of researcher reflexivity, and honest communication between the researcher and the audience regarding the study and its results.”

May combine two claims.

Regardless of the researcher's degree of visibility to study participants, persistent observation of the targeted sample is critical to the confirmability standard and to achieving data saturation.

“Regardless of the researcher's degree of visibility to the study participants, persistent observation of the targeted sample is critical to the confirmability standard and to achieving data saturation.”

• cites [28] 28. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Study conclusions must be clearly grounded in persistent phenomena witnessed during the study, rather than on a fluke event.

“That is, study conclusions must be clearly grounded in persistent phenomena witnessed during the study, rather than on a fluke event.28”

• cites [28] 28. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Due to the creative interpretative and contextually bound nature of qualitative studies, the application of standards of rigor and adherence to systematic processes well-documented in an audit trail are essential.

“Thus, due to the creative interpretative and contextually bound nature of qualitative studies, the application of standards of rigor and adherence to systematic processes welldocumented in an audit trail are essential.”

• cites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Qualitative studies are creative, interpretative, and contextually bound in nature.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Thick and rich descriptions, where robust descriptive language is used to provide sufficient contextual information, enable the reader to determine credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

“Thick and rich descriptions, where robust descriptive language is used to provide sufficient contextual information, enable the reader to determine credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The process of demonstrating the credibility of research is rooted in honest and transparent reporting of how biases and other possible confounders were identified and addressed throughout study processes.

“The process of demonstrating the credibility of research is rooted in honest and transparent reporting of how biases and other possible confounders were identified and addressed throughout study processes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Rigor in the research process and results are achieved when each element of study methodology is systematic and transparent through complete, methodical, and accurate reporting.

“Rigor in the research process and results are achieved when each element of study methodology is systematic and transparent through complete, methodical, and accurate reporting.33”

• cites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.