Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research
==========================================================

* Helen Noble
* Joanna Smith

Evaluating the quality of research is essential if findings are to be utilised in practice and incorporated into care delivery. In a previous article we explored ‘bias’ across research designs and outlined strategies to minimise bias.1 The aim of this article is to further outline rigour, or the integrity in which a study is conducted, and ensure the credibility of findings in relation to qualitative research. Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative research and alternative terminology will be compared in relation to their application to qualitative research. In addition, some of the strategies adopted by qualitative researchers to enhance the credibility of their research are outlined.

## Are the terms reliability and validity relevant to ensuring credibility in qualitative research?

Assessing the reliability of study findings requires researchers and health professionals to make judgements about the ‘soundness’ of the research in relation to the application and appropriateness of the methods undertaken and the integrity of the final conclusions. Qualitative research is frequently criticised for lacking scientific rigour with poor justification of the methods adopted, lack of transparency in the analytical procedures and the findings being merely a collection of personal opinions subject to researcher bias.2 ,3 For the novice researcher, demonstrating rigour when undertaking qualitative research is challenging because there is no of accepted consensus about the standards by which such research should be judged.2

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.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.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.3 Lincoln and Guba5 offer alternative criteria for demonstrating rigour within qualitative research namely truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. Table 1 outlines the differences in terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research.

View this table:
[Table 1](http://ebn.bmj.com/content/18/2/34/T1)

Table 1 
Terminology and criteria used to evaluate the credibility of research findings

## What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings?

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. Such strategies include: 

1.  Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings;6

2.  Acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection and analysis;3

3.  Meticulous record keeping, demonstrating a clear decision trail and ensuring interpretations of data are consistent and transparent;3 ,4

4.  Establishing a comparison case/seeking out similarities and differences across accounts to ensure different perspectives are represented;6 ,7

5.  Including rich and thick verbatim descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings;7

6.  Demonstrating clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations3;

7.  Engaging with other researchers to reduce research bias;3

8.  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;4

9.  Data triangulation,3 ,4 whereby different methods and perspectives help produce a more comprehensive set of findings.8 ,9

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.10

View this table:
[Table 2](http://ebn.bmj.com/content/18/2/34/T2)

Table 2 
Strategies for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research

In summary, it is imperative that all qualitative researchers incorporate strategies to enhance the credibility of a study during research design and implementation. Although there is no universally accepted terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research, we have briefly outlined some of the strategies that can enhance the credibility of study findings.

## Footnotes

*   Twitter Follow Joanna Smith at [@josmith175](http://twitter.com/josmith175) and Helen Noble at [@helnoble](http://twitter.com/helnoble)

*   Competing interests None.

## References

1.  Smith J, Noble H. Bias in research. Evid Based Nurs 2014;17:2–3. [doi:10.1136/eb-2014-101946](http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101946)
    
    [PubMed](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24257909&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F18%2F2%2F34.atom) 

2.  Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 2006;53:304–10. [doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x)
    
    [CrossRef](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16441535&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F18%2F2%2F34.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234984900009&link_type=ISI) 

3.  Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Adv Nurs Sci 1993;16:1–8. [doi:10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002)
    
    [PubMed](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8311422&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F18%2F2%2F34.atom) 

4.  Long T, Johnson M. Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eff Nurs 2000;4:30–7. [doi:10.1054/cein.2000.0106](http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/cein.2000.0106)
    
    [CrossRef](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1054/cein.2000.0106&link_type=DOI) 

5.  Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.
    
    

6.  Morse J, Barrett M, Mayan M, et al. Verification strategies for establishing reliability validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Res 2002;1:1–19.
    
    

7.  Slevin E. Enhancing the truthfulness, consistency, and transferability of a qualitative study: using a manifold of two approaches. Nurse Res 2002;7:79–197. [doi:10.7748/nr2000.01.7.2.79.c6113](http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/nr2000.01.7.2.79.c6113)
    
    

8.  Fraser S, Greenhalgh T. Coping with complexity: educating for capability. BMJ 2001;323:799–803. [doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7316.799](http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7316.799)
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjMvNzMxNi83OTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2VibnVycy8xOC8yLzM0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

9.  Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a1035. [doi:10.1136/bmj.a1035](http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1035)
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzMzcvYXVnMDdfMy9hMTAzNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvZWJudXJzLzE4LzIvMzQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

10. Noble H, Kelly D, Hudson P. Experiences of carers supporting dying renal patients, managed without dialysis. J Adv Nurs 2012;69:1829–39. [doi:10.1111/jan.12049](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.12049)
    
    [PubMed](http://ebn.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23167619&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F18%2F2%2F34.atom)