internal reliability in qualitative research

Table 2 provides some specific examples of how some of these strategies were utilised to ensure rigour in a study that explored the impact of being a family carer to patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis.There are four main types of reliability that can be estimated by comparing different sets of results produced by the same method. Respondent validation: includes inviting participants to comment on the interview transcript and whether the final themes and concepts created adequately reflect the phenomena being investigated 4ĭata triangulation, 3, 4 whereby different methods and perspectives help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. Including rich and thick verbatim descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings 7ĭemonstrating clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations 3 Įngaging with other researchers to reduce research bias 3 Meticulous record keeping, demonstrating a clear decision trail and ensuring interpretations of data are consistent and transparent 3, 4Įstablishing a comparison case/seeking out similarities and differences across accounts to ensure different perspectives are represented 6, 7 Such strategies include:Īccounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings 6Īcknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection and analysis 3

Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply statistical methods for establishing validity and reliability of research findings, qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate methodological strategies to ensure the ‘trustworthiness’ of the findings.

What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings? Table 1 outlines the differences in terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research. 3 Lincoln and Guba 5 offer alternative criteria for demonstrating rigour within qualitative research namely truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. 4 However, if qualitative methods are inherently different from quantitative methods in terms of philosophical positions and purpose, then alterative frameworks for establishing rigour are appropriate. 2–4 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. Although the tests and measures used to establish the validity and reliability of quantitative research cannot be applied to qualitative research, there are ongoing debates about whether terms such as validity, reliability and generalisability are appropriate to evaluate qualitative research.

Internal reliability in qualitative research