Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines
By Clíodhna O’Connor, H. Joffe. 2020
3,399 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Evaluating the intercoder reliability (ICR) of a coding frame is frequently recommended as good practice in qualitative analysis. ICR is a somewhat controversial topic in the qualitative research community, with some arguing that it is an inappropriate or unnecessary step within the goals of qualitative analysis. Yet ICR assessment can yield numerous benefits for qualitative studies, which include improving the systematicity, communicability, and transparency of the coding process; promoting reflexivity and dialogue within research teams; and helping convince diverse audiences of the trustworthiness of the analysis. Few guidelines exist to help researchers negotiate the assessment of ICR in qualitative analysis. The current article explains what ICR is, reviews common arguments for and against its incorporation in qualitative analysis and offers guidance on the practical elements of performing an ICR assessment.
Subfields: Education, General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/127e7574152cdae10c5839575d5a6e0ef488ac1b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- Beyond a coefficient: an interactive process for achieving inter-rater consistency in qualitative coding (2020, background): “…and most basically, our descriptions answer the call for researchers to be more transparent in relaying the steps taken in their treatment of qualitative data (e.g. Burla et al., 2008; Church et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2005; Hruschka et al., 2004; O’Connor and Joffe, 2020; Roberts et al., 2019).”