The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 66 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research
Open accessAbstract
Attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices for qualitative research design as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in health professions educational scholarship are presented. A research question must be clear and focused and supported by a strong conceptual framework, both of which contribute to the selection of appropriate research methods that enhance trustworthiness and minimize researcher bias inherent in qualitative methodologies. Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question. Researcher reflexivity, essentially a researcher’s insight into their own biases and rationale for decision-making as the study progresses, is critical to rigor. This article reviews common standards of rigor, quality scholarship criteria, and best practices for qualitative research from design through dissemination.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own interpretation · 19 No full text of the sources · 8 Sources not found · 6 Not checked yet · 5 No basis given · 4 Supported so far · 4 Partly supported · 2 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, if the research participants or topic are too familiar or personal, this may also influence data collection or analysis and interpretation of the results.33”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
In “The Credibility of the Researcher” (page not supplied), the paper asks researchers to disclose personal connections to the people or topic studied and information that may have affected data collection, analysis, or interpretation. “Researcher and Research Effects” also explains that closeness to participants can make a researcher’s objectivity suspect. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Any researcher biases not adequately addressed or errors in judgement can affect the quality of data and subsequent research results.33”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
In “Researcher and Research Effects” (page unavailable), the paper says evaluator biases may affect data analysis and interpretation, and ties the trustworthiness of data to the researcher who collects and analyzes it. “Researcher Training, Experience, and Preparation” also describes how biases shape observation. Together, these support the claim that unaddressed bias or errors in judgment can affect data quality and findings. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The confirmability of the results is influenced by reducing or at a minimum explaining any researcher influence on the result by applying and meeting standards of rigor such as member checking, triangulation, and peer review.29,33”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 5: Reporting Research Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] 29. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13(6):522-525. source
- Supportedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
The sections on Researcher and Research Effects and The Credibility of the Researcher explain that researcher biases can affect interpretation and that researchers should disclose their perspectives. The Triangulation and Triangulation Through Multiple Analysts sections describe checking findings across sources, having participants review findings, and using multiple analysts to review interpretations. The paper frames these practices as enhancing credibility and validity rather than using the claim’s specific term “confirmability.” Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Facial expressions, spoken language, body language, style of dress, age, race, gender, social status, culture, and the researcher's relationship with the participants may potentially influence either participants' responses or how the researcher interprets those responses.33”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“If a theme or theory can be arrived at and validated using multiple sources of data, the result of the study has greater credibility and confirmability.16,33,36”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 3: Data Analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
The Triangulation section says that checking findings across different data sources contributes to verification and validation of qualitative analysis. It also says that consistency in patterns across sources contributes significantly to the credibility of findings, supporting the claim’s use of multiple sources to validate a theme or theory. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] 36. Johnson RB. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education. 1997;118(2):282.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the idea of fully achieving data saturation may be unrealistic when applied to some populations or research questions.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Other considerations related to sampling bias may impact the quantity and quality of data generated and therefore the quality of the study result.
In the paper
“A poor decision regarding sample size is a direct consequence of sampling strategy and quality of data generated, which leaves the researcher unable to fully answer the research question in sufficient depth.30”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] 30. Cleary M, Horsfall J, Hayter M. Data collection and sampling in qualitative research: does size matter? J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(3):473-475. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, accurately predicting a sample size during the planning phases of qualitative research can be challenging.30”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] 30. Cleary M, Horsfall J, Hayter M. Data collection and sampling in qualitative research: does size matter? J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(3):473-475. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While a conceptual framework is important to rigor in qualitative research, Huberman and Miles caution qualitative researchers about developing and using a framework to the extent that it influences qualitative design deductively because this would violate the very principles of induction that define the qualitative research paradigm.25”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25] 25. Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Some journals within the field of health professions education have also established best practice guidance, as opposed to strict criteria or a checklist, for qualitative research.These have been disseminated as guiding questions or evaluation categories.In 2015, Academic Medicine produced an expanded second edition of a researcher/author manual that includes specific criteria with extensive expla”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Durning SJ, Carline J, eds. Review criteria for research manuscripts, 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 44
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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]”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA. The problem of appraising qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2004;13:223-225 source
In “Qualitative Research Is Not a Unified Field,” the paper says that treating qualitative research as a unified field produces appraisal criteria that fit some methodologies but not others. Its introduction also reports concerns that rigid criteria can stifle interpretive and creative aspects of qualitative research. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. Stige B, Malterud K, Midtgarden T. Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(10):1504-16. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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]”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] 2. Anderson C. Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010; 74(8):Article 141. source
The “Checklist for Qualitative Papers” section says the paper establishes criteria for judging qualitative research and provides a checklist to help authors and reviewers. This supports citing it as one example of the publications described; the citation need not establish the number of other publications. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] 15. Agee J. Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2009;22(4):431-447. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [15] 15. Agee J. Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2009;22(4):431-447. source
In “Beginning the process” (page not provided), Agee says qualitative questions should inquire about phenomena and attend to the particular situation and context. In “Reflexivity and ethical considerations in developing questions” (page not provided), she says questions should reflect that particularity; she also links developing and refining questions to more rigorous inquiry. The Abstract connects question quality to subsequent stages of a study. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [41] 41. Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conceptual framework contributes directly to determining sample definitions, size, and recruitment of participants.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests 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.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff identified six criteria applicable to assessing the quality of scholarship.18,19”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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 sourcecites [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. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Durning SJ, Carline J, eds. Review criteria for research manuscripts, 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [23] 23. Ravitch S, Carl N. Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2016.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. Denzin, Norman, Lincoln YS. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] 28. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27] 27. Guba E, Lincoln Y. Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22] 22. Lingard L. Writing an effective literature review. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(1):47-49.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other instances, attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Durning SJ, Carline J, eds. Review criteria for research manuscripts, 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012. source
- Not matchedcites [25] 25. Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23] 23. Ravitch S, Carl N. Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2016.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] 29. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13(6):522-525. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first two criteria, clear purpose and adequate preparation, are directly related to formulating effective research questions and a strong conceptual framework.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This framework provides detailed explanations of what should be reported in each of 21 sections of a qualitative research manuscript.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 5: Reporting Research Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 3: Data Analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. Creswell J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Res Des. 2013:1-26.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Creswell J, Miller D. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 2000;39(3):124-130. source
- Not matchedcites [36] 36. Johnson RB. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education. 1997;118(2):282.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 3: Data Analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] 34. Mulhall A. In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(3):306-313. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 5: Reporting Research Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] 40. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63-75. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 3: Data Analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] 28. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That is, study conclusions must be clearly grounded in persistent phenomena witnessed during the study, rather than on a fluke event.28”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 2: Qualitative Study Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] 28. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Qualitative studies are creative, interpretative, and contextually bound in nature.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 5: Reporting Research Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > Step 5: Reporting Research Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] 33. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Qualitative research in health professions education has increased significantly, both in practice and publication, within the past 20 years.
“Within the past 20 years, qualitative research in health professions education has increased significantly, both in practice and publication.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been recurrent calls for enhancing rigor and quality in qualitative research.
“Simultaneously, there have been recurrent calls for enhancing rigor and quality in qualitative research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question.
“Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Qualitative studies typically reflect designs in which data collection and analysis are done concurrently, with results of ongoing analysis informing continuing data collection.
“Qualitative studies typically reflect designs in which data collection and analysis are done concurrently, with results of ongoing analysis informing continuing data collection.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Common qualitative data collection methods used in health professions education include interview, direct observation methods, and textual/document analysis.
“Common qualitative data collection methods used in health professions education include interview, direct observation methods, and textual/document analysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size.
“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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The idea of fully achieving data saturation may be unrealistic when applied to some populations or research questions.
“Thus, the idea of fully achieving data saturation may be unrealistic when applied to some populations or research questions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prolonged engagement supports reflexivity by allowing the researcher to determine how they themselves may be a source of bias during data collection by altering how individuals behave or interact in the researcher's presence.
“This strategy supports reflexivity, allowing the researcher to determine how they themselves may be a source of bias during the data collection process by altering the nature of how individuals behave or interact with others in the presence of the researcher.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In observational methods, it is impossible to separate the researcher from the environment.
“In both observation scenarios, it is impossible to separate the researcher from the environment, and researcher reflexivity is essential.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Observational methodologies are limited by the researcher's bias in determining what is observed, what is recorded, how it is recorded, and how it is transcribed for analysis.
“Researchers acknowledge that observational methodologies are limited by the reality that the researcher carries a bias in determining what is observed, what is recorded, how it is recorded, and how it is transcribed for analysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In qualitative studies, the researcher is often the primary instrument for data collection.
“In qualitative studies, the researcher is often the primary instrument for data collection.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Qualitative studies are creative, interpretative, and contextually bound in nature.
“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.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“closely aligning our specific research question with our framework and experimental design [34]”
From "It let me merge my love of teaching with research": A qualitative investigation of the career pathways of biology education researchers. (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This suggests that data saturation was reached after 20 interviews (Online Resource 2), enhancing the rigour of our qualitative study [28].”
From Young People’s Barriers and Facilitators of Engagement with Web-Based Mental Health Interventions for Anxiety and Depression: A Qualitative Study (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“To increase the study credibility, all the transcripts were checked for accuracy [28] and de-identified by [first author] prior to importing into NVivo version 12 [29].”
From Young People’s Barriers and Facilitators of Engagement with Web-Based Mental Health Interventions for Anxiety and Depression: A Qualitative Study (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“This increases confidence in the credibility of the findings (Thomas and Magilvy, 2011), ensuring that the researchers interpretation of the data is a true reflection of the midwives’ experiences and is not inadvertently influenced by the researchers own beliefs and values (Johnson et al., 2020).”
From Stranger in a mask” midwives’ experiences of providing perinatal bereavement care to parents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland: a qualitative descriptive study (2022) · cites this paper as Johnson et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH Step 1: Identifying a Research Topic
“Ringsted, Hodges, and Sherpbier describe three essential parts to an effective conceptual framework”
§ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PHARMACY EDUCATION A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research > References
“21. Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. "The research compass": an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 56.”
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211 · cited 2×
“Limitations and issues of reflexivity and ethics are clearly and explicitly described, including references to actions taken to address these areas.(3,4,12,14)”
Background(1996) · Cited by 11,584
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-1330 · Cited by 10,178
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects
Shenton, A. K. (2004) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201 · Cited by 9,748 · cited 3×
“Transferability is communicated, in part, through description of sampling factors such as: geographical location of the study, number and characteristics of participants, and the timeframe of data collection and analysis.(40) Such descriptions also contribute to the credibility of the results and readers’ determinatio…”
BackgroundMethodDetermining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 · Cited by 9,184 · cited 1×
“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) Again, researcher practice in reflexivity t…”
Method(2011) · Cited by 7,157
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research[1]
(2006) · Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/17465640610666642 · Cited by 5,866
Sampling for qualitative research
Marshall, M. N. (1996) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/13.6.522 · Cited by 4,293 · cited 3×
“A typical best practice is purposive sampling methods, and when appropriate, convenience sampling may be justified.(29) Purposive sampling reflects intentional selection of research participants to optimize data sources for answering the research question.”
BackgroundEnhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.
(1999) · PubMed Central · Cited by 4,133
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Creswell, 2013, Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Res Des, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,201–1,213 of 1,213
Are patients receiving specialist palliative care thirsty? A qualitative interview study
Lythell, C., Schaller, A. S., Jaarsma, T., & Friedrichsen, M. (2026) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-026-02331-6
“A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify participants best suited to answer the research question [16].”
Conroy, K., Albright, M. G., Roberts, K. B., Costello, M. A., Jannetti, A. J., Wing, A., & Schuster, R. M. (2026) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.70107
Moores, A., Charalampopoulos, D., Williams, A. G., & Rivera, X. C. S. (2026) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.71680
Lawson, S. G., Pendleton, J., Lowder, E. M., Ehrhart, S., & Ray, B. R. (2026) · Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/casp.70333
Ghazal, L. V., Dogtir, J. D., Brown, J. L., Brandon, R., Chen, M., Francis-Levin, N., Voisine, R., Cheung, C. K., Rappaport, A., Zebrack, B., et al. (2026) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/10732748261494049
Acquistapace, E., Bernardini, B., Piccioni, F., et al. (2026) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.70821
“To ensure methodological rigour and validity of the results, the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability were applied, as defined in a previous study (Johnson et al. 2020).”
Masuku, A. S., Adam, J. K., & Nkosi, P. B. (2025) · African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies · doi:10.51415/ajims.v7i2.2882
Onyango, E. O., Kiplagat, J., Gokiert, R., et al. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0359620
“Furthermore, we employed purposive sampling to select respondents with relevant expertise and experience in COVID-19 policy, governance, and informal food vending [53].”
Franklin, S., & Mathew, N. (2026) · National Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.55489/njmr.160420261378
Voß, H., Telschow, L., Bechdolf, A., Berghöfer, A., Sachsenheimer, F., Wagler, S., Lehmann, B., Jäckel, D., Pössnecker, Y., & Ehlen, F. (2026) · Psychology and Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice · doi:10.1111/papt.70113
Clark, S. (2026) · American Journal of Qualitative Research · doi:10.66815/ajqr/19490
Ray, L., & Thompson, J. (2026) · Journal of Intercultural Communication Research · doi:10.1080/17475759.2026.2741081
Fielder, H., Kelly, R. K., & Griffin, P. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70901
“Purposive sampling [28] was used to ensure participants had specific insights relevant to the study aim.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S.
- Affiliations
- William Carey University (US)
- Louisiana State University (US)
- ORCID
- Johnson, Jessica L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7120
- ISSN
- 0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7055404
- OpenAlex
- W2936015247
- Cited by
- 2,076
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 482 · 2025: 494 · 2024: 580 · 2023: 320 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 13
- FWCI
- 29.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- qualitative research rigor, research quality indicators, health professions education, research design, trustworthiness, researcher bias, reflexivity, conceptual framework, research dissemination
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Education, Pharmacy, Fellowships and Scholarships, Humans, Research Design, Research Personnel, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Qualitative Research
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
