Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research

By T. Long, Martin Johnson. 2000

750 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract This article addresses issues relating to rigour within qualitative research, beginning with the need for rigour at all in such studies. The concept of reliability is then analysed, establishing the traditional understanding of the term, and evaluating alternative terms. A similar exploration of validity and proposed alternatives follows. It is suggested that there is nothing to be gained from the use of alternative terms which, on analysis, often prove to be identical to the traditional terms of reliability and validity. Alternative or novel means of addressing these concepts in interpretive research are, however, welcomed. A review of some of the strategies available for the pursuit of reliability and validity in qualitative research is undertaken. These are clearly identified as means to establish existing criteria and are found to have variable value.

Subfields: Education, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c75c4ba6b86c5cf720fd59d8c5451d7b2c9af13a

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

The Analytic Challenge in Interpretive Description (2004, methodology): “…assist with this process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sandelowski, 1986), presenting a litany of attributes such as trustworthiness and transferability, or making claims about one’s integrity (such as reporting an “audit trail”) are generally quite meaningless (Long & Johnson, 2000; Sandelowski, 1993).”
Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research (2011, neutral): “Traditionally in quantitative research this process is based on the assessment of reliability and validity [1].”
Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research (2015, neutral): “In the broadest context these terms are applicable, with validity referring to the integrity and application of the methods undertaken and the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data, while reliability describes consistency within the employed analytical procedures.(4) However, i”
The research design maze: understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies (2012, methodology): “In addition, peer debriefing (Long and Johnson 2000) could be performed to test code reliability.”
Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development (2019, background): “inter-rater or inter-coder testing); and, construct validity (appropriateness of data-led inferences to the research question using reflexive techniques) [4].”
Analysing and presenting qualitative data (2008, background): “• Children’s perception of food However, researchers wishing to use such health, and perhaps even as a result of • Positive notions of food and their software should first undertake appro- participation in the study.(15)”
How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis (2016, methodology): “…who debate the use of the same criteria and concepts as for quantitative research – validity, reliability and generalizability (Downe-Wambolt, 1992; Long & Johnson, 2000) – and those who believe that a different set of criteria and concepts is needed (Catanzaro, 1988; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004),…”
Beyond the Qualitative Interview: Data Preparation and Transcription (2003, background): “The increased use of qualitative research, especially its application in multisite studies, requires robust data collection techniques and the documentation of research procedures (Constas 1992; Miles and Huberman 1994:22; Mays and Pope 1996; Long and Johnson 2000; Malterud 2001).”