CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Meaningful Member-Checking: A Structured Approach to Member-Checking

Open access
McKim, Courtney·2023·American Journal of Qualitative Research
DOI 10.66815/ajqr/12973
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Validity is essential to establish in any qualitative research study. There are numerous approaches to establish validity. One common technique utilized to establish validity is member-checking. The goal of member-checking is to provide credibility to the data (Elo et al., 2014). Member-checking is commonly conducted by presenting data transcripts to some or all participants for feedback (Varpio et al., 2017). This process is relatively easy and requires little effort from researchers and participants. However, this process has some weaknesses. One weakness is the information gathered during member-checking. Participants typically do not provide much feedback when reviewing transcripts, and therefore relying on this approach to establish validity is questionable. Member-checking is a valuable tool, but the approach should be more structured. This paper presents a structured approach, complete with interview questions and data analysis steps, to member-checking that minimizes the weaknesses and emphasizes the strengths.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.66815/ajqr/12973

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Without such intentionality, peer collaboration risks becoming superficial, providing emotional support but failing to develop the inquiry-driven, inclusive pedagogies that early childhood science teaching demands.

    “Without such intentionality, peer collaboration risks becoming superficial, providing emotional support but failing to develop the inquiry-driven, inclusive pedagogies that early childhood science teaching demands.”

    From Teaching Science anew in the Foundation Phase: Reimagining pre-service teacher learning for Inclusive Early Pedagogy (2026) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Value in a New Approach and Integrating Feedback sections discuss structured member-checking between researchers and participants, not peer collaboration among teachers. Searches for superficial peer collaboration, emotional support, and inquiry-driven early childhood science pedagogy found no passage addressing the claim. The available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Allen-Meares, P., & Lane, B. A. (1990). Social work practice: Integrating qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. Social Work, 35(5), 452-458. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23715281
  2. Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031003015 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Astin, F., & Long, A. (2014). Characteristics of qualitative research and its application. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 9(2), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjca.2014.9.2.93 · DOI
  4. Bailey, L. F. (2014). The origin and success of qualitative research. International Journal of Market Research, 56, 167-184. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2014-013 · DOI
  5. Balmer, A. (2021). Painting with data: Alternative aesthetics of qualitative research. The Sociological Review, 69(6), 1143-1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026121991787 · DOI
  6. Barusch, A., Gringeri, C., & George, M. (2011). Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research, 35(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.1.11 · DOI
  7. Berrios, R., & Lucca, N. (2006). Qualitative methodology in counseling research: Recent contributions and challenges for a new century. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84(2), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00393.x · DOI
  8. Blaikie, N. (2018). Confounding issues related to determine sample size in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21, 635-641. https://doi/org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454644 · DOI
  9. Butina, M. (2015). A narrative approach to qualitative inquiry. Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 190-196. https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.28.3.190 · DOI
  10. Candela, A. G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 619-628. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726 · DOI
  11. Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102-1113. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1332 · DOI
  12. Celestina, M. (2018). Between trust and distrust in research with participants in conflict context. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(3), 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1427603 · DOI
  13. Chesebro, J. W., & Borisoff, D. J. (2007). What makes qualitative research qualitative? Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430701617846 · DOI
  14. Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Choy, L. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-194399104 · DOI
  16. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
  17. Damianakis, T., & Woodford, M. R. (2012). Qualitative research with small connected communities: Generating new knowledge while upholding research ethics. Qualitative Health Research, 22(5), 708-718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311431444 · DOI
  18. Daniel, E. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7, 91-100.
  19. Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230201200211 · DOI
  20. del Rio Carral, M., & Tseliou, E. (2019). Mapping qualitative research in psychology across Europe: Contemporary trends. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), 325-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605276 · DOI
  21. Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1319-1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012- 0016-6 · DOI
  22. Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001 · DOI
  24. Fahie, D. (2014). Doing sensitive research sensitively: Ethical and methodological issues in researching workplace bullying. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300108 · DOI
  25. Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 266-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3 · DOI
  26. Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. SAGE Publications.
  27. Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. EDIS, 3, 1-3. https://doi/.org/10.32473/edis-fy394-2011 · DOI
  28. Hamilton, A. B., & Finley, E. P. (2019). Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction. Psychiatry Research, 280, Article 112516. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516 · DOI
  29. Harper, M., & Cole, P. (2012). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy? The Qualitative Report, 17(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160- 3715/2012.2139 · DOI
  30. Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizibility and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99(2), 178-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12365 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hernando, C., Sabidó, M., & Casabona, J. (2018). Facilitators and barriers of participation in a longitudinal research on migrant families in Badalona (Spain): A qualitative approach. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(1), e64-e74. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12478 · DOI
  32. Horowitz, G. (2010). It's not always just about the grade: Exploring the achievement goal orientations of pre-med students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(2), 215- 245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903352746 · DOI
  33. Hughes, K., Hughes, J., & Cocq, F. P. (2020). Introduction: Making the case for qualitative interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(5), 541-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766756 · DOI
  34. Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282-292.
  35. Jordan, K. (2018). Validity, reliability, and the case for participant-centered research: Reflections on a multi-platform social media study. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 34(10), 913-921. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1471570 · DOI
  36. Joubish, M. F., Khurram, M. A., Ahmed, A., Fatima, S. T., & Haider, K. (2011). Paradigms and characteristics of a good qualitative research. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(11), 2082-2087.
  37. Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632-1642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879 · DOI
  38. Knapik, M. (2006). The qualitative research interview: Participants' responsive participation in knowledge making. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500308 · DOI
  39. Kvale, S. (1992). Ten standard responses to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25, 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916294X00016 · DOI
  40. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  41. López-Zerón, G., Bilbao-Nieva, M. I., & Clements, K. A. V. (2021). Conducting member checks with multilingual research participants from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 2(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.24412 · DOI
  42. MacMillan, K., & Koenig, T. (2004). The wow factor: Preconceptions and expectations for data analysis software in qualitative research. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 179- 186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262625 · DOI
  43. McFadyen, J., & Rankin, J. (2016). The role of gatekeepers in research: Learning from reflexivity and reflection. GSTF Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 4(1), 82-88.
  44. Meyer, D. K., & Schutz, P. A. (2020). Why talk about qualitative and mixed methods in educational psychology? Introduction to special issue. Educational Psychologist, 55(4), 193-196. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1796671 · DOI
  45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  46. Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment, and People, 7(1), 23-48.
  47. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.
  48. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality & Quantity, 41, 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3 · DOI
  49. Pinto, A., Rodriguez, A., & Smith, J. (2022). Research sensitive topics in healthcare. Evidence- Based Nursing, 25, 41-43. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103501 · DOI
  50. Poerwandari, E. K. (2021). Minimizing bias and maximizing the potential strengths of autoethnography as a narrative research. Japanese Psychological Research, 63(4), 310- 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12320 · DOI
  51. Reed, M., Harrington, R., Duggan, A., & Wood, V. A. (2010). Meeting stroke survivors' perceived needs: A qualitative study of a community-based exercise and education scheme. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509347433 · DOI
  52. Renert, H., Russell-Mayhew, S., & Arthur, N. (2013). Recruiting Ethnically Diverse Participants into Qualitative Health Research: Lessons Learned. The Qualitative Report, 18(12), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1542 · DOI
  53. Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Sale, J. E. (2022). The role of analytic direction in qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22, 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01546-4 · DOI
  55. Schiellerup, P. (2008). Stop making sense: The trials and tribulations of qualitative data analysis. Area, 40(2), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00817.x · DOI
  56. Schindler, C., Veja, C., Hocker, J., Kminek, H., & Meier, M. (2020). Collaborative open analysis in a qualitative research environment. Education for Information, 36(3), 247- 261. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-190261 · DOI
  57. Shaw, I. (2008). Ethics and the practice of qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 7(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325008097137 · DOI
  58. Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643 · DOI
  59. Sofaer, S. (2002). Qualitative research methods. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 14(4), 329-336. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/14.4.329 · DOI
  60. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.
  61. Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to … assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(6), 596-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13242 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Stevens, K., & Palfreyman, S. (2012). The use of qualitative methods in developing the descriptive systems of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life for use in economic evaluation. Value in Health, 15(8), 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2204 · DOI
  63. Sullivan, G. M., & Sargeant, J. (2011). Qualities of qualitative research: Part I. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(4), 449-452. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11- 00221. · DOI
  64. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Falmer Press.
  65. Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14, 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Wertz, F. J. (2014). Qualitative inquiry in the history of psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000007 · DOI
  67. Westby, C. E. (2021). Using qualitative methodologies in speech-language pathology: An example from serving students with hearing loss. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 42(2), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740120902993 · DOI
  68. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119299 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Wright, A. N., & Tolan, J. (2009). Prejudice reduction through shared adventure: A qualitative outcome assessment of a multicultural education class. Journal of Experiential Education, 32(2), 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590903200204 Notes on Contributor Courtney McKim is an associate professor of Educational Research in the School of Counseling, Leadership, Advocacy, and Design at the University of Wyoming. She teaches a mixture of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Her research focuses on the use and value of various methodological techniques. She also serves as a methodologist on various research projects. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKim, C.
Affiliations
University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
McKim, Courtney
ORCID
McKim, Courtney
Venue
American Journal of Qualitative Research
Publisher
Center for Ethnic and Cultural Studies
Published
2023-02-20
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
41-52
ISSN
2576-2141 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.66815/ajqr/12973
OpenAlex
W7171407786
Cited by
68
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 2
FWCI
30.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
American Journal of Qualitative Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
member checking, validity, credibility, qualitative research, participant feedback, structured approach, interview questions, data analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review