qualitative research trustworthiness and rigour

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.84(1); 2020 Jan

A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research

Jessica l. johnson.

a William Carey University School of Pharmacy, Biloxi, Mississippi

Donna Adkins

Sheila chauvin.

b Louisiana State University, School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana

Attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices for qualitative research design as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in health professions educational scholarship are presented. A research question must be clear and focused and supported by a strong conceptual framework, both of which contribute to the selection of appropriate research methods that enhance trustworthiness and minimize researcher bias inherent in qualitative methodologies. Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question. Researcher reflexivity, essentially a researcher’s insight into their own biases and rationale for decision-making as the study progresses, is critical to rigor. This article reviews common standards of rigor, quality scholarship criteria, and best practices for qualitative research from design through dissemination.

INTRODUCTION

Within the past 20 years, qualitative research in health professions education has increased significantly, both in practice and publication. Today, one can pick up most any issue of a wide variety of health professions education journals and find at least one article that includes some type of qualitative research, whether a full study or the inclusion of a qualitative component within a quantitative or mixed methods study. Simultaneously, there have been recurrent calls for enhancing rigor and quality in qualitative research.

As members of the academic community, we share responsibility for ensuring rigor in qualitative research, whether as researchers who design and implement, manuscript reviewers who critique, colleagues who discuss and learn from each other, or scholarly teachers who draw upon results to enhance and innovate education. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to summarize standards of rigor and suggested best practices for designing, conducting, and reporting high-quality qualitative research. To begin, Denzin and Lincoln’s definition of qualitative research, a long-standing cornerstone in the field, provides a useful foundation for summarizing quality standards and best practices:

Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interview; artifacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe the routine and problematic moments and meanings in individual lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretative practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretative practice in any study. 1

In recent years, multiple publications have synthesized quality criteria and recommendations for use by researchers and peer reviewers alike, often in the form of checklists. 2-6 Some authors have raised concerns about the use of such checklists and adherence to strict, universal criteria because they do not afford sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse approaches and multiple interpretive practices often represented in qualitative studies. 7-11 They argue that a strict focus on using checklists of specific technical criteria may stifle the diversity and multiplicity of practices that are so much a part of achieving quality and rigor within the qualitative paradigm. As an alternative, some of these authors have published best practice guidelines for use by researchers and peer reviewers to achieve and assess methodological rigor and research quality. 12,13

Some journals within the field of health professions education have also established best practice guidance, as opposed to strict criteria or a checklist, for qualitative research. These have been disseminated as guiding questions or evaluation categories. In 2015, Academic Medicine produced an expanded second edition of a researcher/author manual that includes specific criteria with extensive explanations and examples. 14 Still others have disseminated best practice guidelines through a series of methodological articles within journal publications. 2

In this article, attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices are presented as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in a step-wise approach.

BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH

Step 1: identifying a research topic.

Identifying and developing a research topic is comprised of two major tasks: formulating a research question, and developing a conceptual framework to support the study. Formulating a research question is often stimulated by real-life observations, experiences, or events in the researcher’s local setting that reflect a perplexing problem begging for systematic inquiry. The research question begins as a problem statement or set of propositions that describe the relationship among certain concepts, behaviors, or experiences. Agee 15 and others 16,17 note that initial questions are usually too broad in focus and too vague regarding the specific context of the study to be answerable and researchable. Creswell reminds us that initial qualitative research questions guide inquiry, but they often change as the author’s understanding of the issue develops throughout the study. 16 Developing and refining a primary research question focused on both the phenomena of interest and the context in which it is situated is essential to research rigor and quality.

Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff identified six criteria applicable to assessing the quality of scholarship. 18,19 Now commonly referred to as the Glassick Criteria ( Table 1 ), these critical attributes outline the essential elements of any scholarly approach and serve as a general research framework for developing research questions and designing studies. The first two criteria, clear purpose and adequate preparation, are directly related to formulating effective research questions and a strong conceptual framework.

Glassick’s Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Scholarship of a Research Study 18

Generating and refining a qualitative research question requires thorough, systematic, and iterative review of the literature, and the use of those results to establish a clear context and foundation for the question and study design. Using an iterative approach, relevant concepts, principles, theories or models, and prior evidence are identified to establish what is known, and more importantly, what is not known. The iterative process contributes to forming a better research question, the criteria for which can be abbreviated by the acronym FINER, ie, f easible, i nteresting, n ovel, e thical, and r elevant, that is answerable and researchable, in terms of research focus, context specificity, and the availability of time, logistics, and resources to carry out the study. Developing a FINER research question is critical to study rigor and quality and should not be rushed, as all other aspects of research design depend on the focus and clarity of the research question(s) guiding the study. 15 Agee provides clear and worthwhile additional guidance for developing qualitative research questions. 15

Reflexivity, the idea that a researcher’s preconceptions and biases can influence decisions and actions throughout qualitative research activities, is a critical aspect of rigor even at the earliest stages of the study. A researcher’s background, beliefs, and experiences may affect any aspect of the research from choosing which specific question to investigate through determining how to present the results. Therefore, even at this early stage, the potential effect of researcher bias and any ethical considerations should be acknowledged and addressed. That is, how will the question’s influence on study design affect participants’ lives, position the researcher in relationship with others, or require specific methods for addressing potential areas of research bias and ethical considerations?

A conceptual framework is then actively constructed to provide a logical and convincing argument for the research. The framework defines and justifies the research question, the methodology selected to answer that question, and the perspectives from which interpretation of results and conclusions will be made. 5,6,20 Developing a well-integrated conceptual framework is essential to establishing a research topic based upon a thorough and integrated review of relevant literature (addressing Glassick criteria #1 and #2: clear purpose and adequate preparation). Key concepts, principles, assumptions, best practices, and theories are identified, defined, and integrated in ways that clearly demonstrate the problem statement and corresponding research question are answerable, researchable, and important to advancing thinking and practice.

Ringsted, Hodges, and Sherpbier describe three essential parts to an effective conceptual framework: theories and/or concepts and principles relevant to the phenomenon of interest; what is known and unknown from prior work, observations, and examples; and the researcher’s observations, ideas, and suppositions regarding the research problem statement and question. 21 Lingard describes four types of unknowns to pursue during literature review: what no one knows; what is not yet well understood; what controversy or conflicting results, understandings, or perspectives exist; and what are unproven assumptions. 22 In qualitative research, these unknowns are critical to achieving a well-developed conceptual framework and a corresponding rigorous study design.

Recent contributions from Ravitch and colleagues present best practices in developing frameworks for conceptual and methodological coherence within a study design, regardless of the research approach. 23,24 Their recommendations and arguments are highly relevant to qualitative research. Figure 1 reflects the primary components of a conceptual framework adapted from Ravitch and Carl 23 and how all components contribute to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice. Notice that each element of the framework interacts with and influences other elements in a dynamic and interactive process from the beginning to the end of a research project. The intersecting bidirectional arrows represent direct relationships between elements as they relate to specific aspects of a qualitative research study.

Adaptation of Ravitch and Carl’s Components of a Conceptual Framework 23

Maxwell also provides useful guidance for developing an effective conceptual framework specific to the qualitative research paradigm. 17 The 2015 second edition of the Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts 14 and work by Ravitch and colleagues 23,24 provide specific guidance for applying the conceptual framework to each stage of the research process to enhance rigor and quality. Quality criteria for assessing a study’s problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question include the following: introduction builds a logical case and provides context for the problem statement; problem statement is clear and well-articulated; conceptual framework is explicit and justified; research purpose and/or question is clearly stated; and constructs being investigated are clearly identified and presented. 14,24,25 As best practice guidelines, these criteria facilitate quality and rigor while providing sufficient flexibility in how each is achieved and demonstrated.

While a conceptual framework is important to rigor in qualitative research, Huberman and Miles caution qualitative researchers about developing and using a framework to the extent that it influences qualitative design deductively because this would violate the very principles of induction that define the qualitative research paradigm. 25 Our profession’s recent emphasis on a holistic admissions process for pharmacy students provides a reasonable example of inductive and deductive reasoning and their respective applications in qualitative and quantitative research studies. Principles of inductive reasoning are applied when a qualitative research study examines a representative group of competent pharmacy professionals to generate a theory about essential cognitive and affective skills for patient-centered care. Deductive reasoning could then be applied to design a hypothesis-driven prospective study that compares the outcomes of two cohorts of students, one group admitted using traditional criteria and one admitted based on a holistic admissions process revised to value the affective skills of applicants. Essentially, the qualitative researcher must carefully generate a conceptual framework that guides the research question and study design without allowing the conceptual framework to become so rigid as to dictate a testable hypothesis, which is the founding principle of deductive reasoning. 26

Step 2: Qualitative Study Design

The development of a strong conceptual framework facilitates selection of appropriate study methods to minimize the bias inherent in qualitative studies and help readers to trust the research and the researcher (see Glassick criteria #3 in Table 1 ). Although researchers can employ great flexibility in the selection of study methods, inclusion of best practice methods for assuring the rigor and trustworthiness of results is critical to study design. Lincoln and Guba outline four criteria for establishing the overall trustworthiness of qualitative research results: credibility, the researcher ensures and imparts to the reader supporting evidence that the results accurately represent what was studied; transferability, the researcher provides detailed contextual information such that readers can determine whether the results are applicable to their or other situations; dependability, the researcher describes the study process in sufficient detail that the work could be repeated; confirmability, the researcher ensures and communicates to the reader that the results are based on and reflective of the information gathered from the participants and not the interpretations or bias of the researcher. 27

Specific best practice methods used in the sampling and data collection processes to increase the rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative research include: clear rationale for sampling design decisions, determination of data saturation, ethics in research design, member checking, prolonged engagement with and persistent observation of study participants, and triangulation of data sources. 28

Qualitative research is focused on making sense of lived, observed phenomenon in a specific context with specifically selected individuals, rather than attempting to generalize from sample to population. Therefore, sampling design in qualitative research is not random but defined purposively to include the most appropriate participants in the most appropriate context for answering the research question. Qualitative researchers recognize that certain participants are more likely to be “rich” with data or insight than others, and therefore, more relevant and useful in achieving the research purpose and answering the question at hand. The conceptual framework contributes directly to determining sample definitions, size, and recruitment of participants. A typical best practice is purposive sampling methods, and when appropriate, convenience sampling may be justified. 29

Purposive sampling reflects intentional selection of research participants to optimize data sources for answering the research question. For example, the research question may be best answered by persons who have particular experience (critical case sampling) or certain expertise (key informant sampling). Similarly, additional participants may be referred for participation by active participants (snowball sampling) or may be selected to represent either similar or opposing viewpoints (confirming or disconfirming samples). Again, the process of developing and using a strong conceptual framework to guide and justify methodological decisions, in this case defining and establishing the study sample, is critical to rigor and quality. 30 Convenience sampling, using the most accessible research participants, is the least rigorous approach to defining a study sample and may result in low accuracy, poor representativeness, low credibility, and lack of transferability of study results.

Qualitative studies typically reflect designs in which data collection and analysis are done concurrently, with results of ongoing analysis informing continuing data collection. Determination of a final sample size is largely based on having sufficient opportunity to collect relevant data until new information is no longer emerging from data collection, new coding is not feasible, and/or no new themes are emerging; that is, reaching data saturation , a common standard of rigor for data collection in qualitative studies . Thus, accurately predicting a sample size during the planning phases of qualitative research can be challenging. 30 Care should be taken that sufficient quantity (think thick description) and quality (think rich description) of data have been collected prior to concluding that data saturation has been achieved. A poor decision regarding sample size is a direct consequence of sampling strategy and quality of data generated, which leaves the researcher unable to fully answer the research question in sufficient depth. 30

Though data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size, it does not apply to all study designs. For example, one could argue that in some approaches to qualitative research, data collection could continue infinitely if the event continues infinitely. In education, we often anecdotally observe variations in the personality and structure of a class of students, and as generations of students continue to evolve with time, so too would the data generated from observing each successive class. In such situations, data saturation might never be achieved. Conversely, the number of participants available for inclusion in a sample may be small and some risk of not reaching data saturation may be unavoidable. Thus, the idea of fully achieving data saturation may be unrealistic when applied to some populations or research questions. In other instances, attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study. By being transparent in the process and reporting of results when saturation may not have been possible, the resulting data may still contribute to the field and to further inquiry. Replication of the study using other samples and conducting additional types of follow-up studies are other options for better understanding the research phenomenon at hand. 31

In addition to defining the sample and selecting participants, other considerations related to sampling bias may impact the quantity and quality of data generated and therefore the quality of the study result. These include: methods of recruiting, procedures for informed consent, timing of the interviews in relation to experience or emotion, procedures for ensuring participant anonymity/confidentiality, interview setting, and methods of recording/transcribing the data. Any of these factors could potentially change the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the study participants and influence the trustworthiness of data collected or the study result. Thus, ongoing application of previously mentioned researcher reflexivity is critical to the rigor of the study and quality of sampling. 29,30

Common qualitative data collection methods used in health professions education include interview, direct observation methods, and textual/document analysis. Given the unique and often highly sensitive nature of data being collected by the researcher, trustworthiness is an essential component of the researcher-participant relationship. Ethical conduct refers to how moral principles and values are part of the research process. Participants’ perceptions of ethical conduct are fundamental to a relationship likely to generate high quality data. During each step of the research process, care must be taken to protect the confidentiality of participants and shield them from harm relating to issues of respect and dignity. Researchers must be respectful of the participants’ contributions and quotes, and results must be reported truthfully and honestly. 8

Interview methods range from highly structured to increase dependability or completely open-ended to allow for interviewers to clarify a participant’s response for increased credibility and confirmability. Regardless, interview protocols and structure are often modified or refined, based on concurrent data collection and analysis processes to support or refute preliminary interpretations and refine focus and continuing inquiry. Researcher reflexivity, or acknowledgement of researcher bias, is absolutely critical to the credibility and trustworthiness of data collection and analysis in such study designs. 32

Interviews should be recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to coding and analysis. 28 Member checking, a common standard of rigor, is a practice to increase study credibility and confirmability that involves asking a research subject to verify the transcription of an interview. 1,16,28 The research subject is asked to verify the completeness and accuracy of an interview transcript to ensure the transcript truthfully reflects the meaning and intent of the subject’s contribution.

Prolonged engagement involves the researcher gaining familiarity and understanding of the culture and context surrounding the persons or situations being studied. This strategy supports reflexivity, allowing the researcher to determine how they themselves may be a source of bias during the data collection process by altering the nature of how individuals behave or interact with others in the presence of the researcher. Facial expressions, spoken language, body language, style of dress, age, race, gender, social status, culture, and the researcher’s relationship with the participants may potentially influence either participants’ responses or how the researcher interprets those responses. 33 “Fitting in” by demonstrating an appreciation and understanding of the cultural norms of the population being studied potentially allows the researcher to obtain more open and honest responses from participants. However, if the research participants or topic are too familiar or personal, this may also influence data collection or analysis and interpretation of the results. 33 The possible applications of this section to faculty research with student participants in the context of pharmacy education are obvious, and researcher reflexivity is critical to rigor.

Some researchers using observational methods adopt a strategy of direct field observation, while others play partial or full participant roles in the activity being observed. In both observation scenarios, it is impossible to separate the researcher from the environment, and researcher reflexivity is essential. The pros and cons of observation approach, relative to the research question and study purpose, should be evaluated by the researcher, and the justification for the observational strategy selected should be made clear. 34 Regardless of the researcher’s degree of visibility to the study participants, persistent observation of the targeted sample is critical to the confirmability standard and to achieving data saturation. That is, study conclusions must be clearly grounded in persistent phenomena witnessed during the study, rather than on a fluke event. 28

Researchers acknowledge that observational methodologies are limited by the reality that the researcher carries a bias in determining what is observed, what is recorded, how it is recorded, and how it is transcribed for analysis. A study’s conceptual framework is critical to achieving rigor and quality and provides guidance in developing predetermined notions or plans for what to observe, how to record, and how to minimize the influence of potential bias. 34 Researcher notes should be recorded as soon as possible after the observation event to optimize accuracy. The more detailed and complete the notes, the more accurate and useful they can be in data analysis or in auditing processes for enhancing rigor in the interpretation phase of the study. 34

Triangulation is among the common standards of rigor applied within the qualitative research paradigm. Data triangulation is used to identify convergence of data obtained through multiple data sources and methods (eg, observation field notes and interview transcripts) to avoid or minimize error or bias and optimize accuracy in data collection and analysis processes. 33,35,36

Again, researcher practice in reflexivity throughout research processes is integral to rigor in study design and implementation. Researchers must demonstrate attention to appropriate methods and reflective critique, which are represented in both core elements of the conceptual framework ( Figure 1 ) and Glassick criteria ( Table 1 ). In so doing, the researcher will be well-prepared to justify sampling design and data collection decisions to manuscript reviewers and, ultimately, readers.

Step 3: Data Analysis

In many qualitative studies, data collection runs concurrently with data analysis. Specific standards of rigor are commonly used to ensure trustworthiness and integrity within the data analysis process, including use of computer software, peer review, audit trail, triangulation, and negative case analysis.

Management and analyses of qualitative data from written text, observational field notes, and interview transcriptions may be accomplished using manual methods or the assistance of computer software applications for coding and analysis. When managing very large data sets or complex study designs, computer software can be very helpful to assist researchers in coding, sorting, organizing, and weighting data elements. Software applications can facilitate ease in calculating semi-quantitative descriptive statistics, such as counts of specific events, that can be used as evidence that the researcher’s analysis is based on a representative majority of data collected ( inclusivism ) rather than focusing on selected rarities ( anecdotalism ). Using software to code data can also make it easier to identify deviant cases, detect coding errors, and estimate interrater reliability among multiple coders. 37 While such software helps to manage data, the actual analyses and interpretation still reside with the researcher.

Peer review, another common standard of rigor, is a process by which researchers invite an independent third-party researcher to analyze a detailed audit trail maintained by the study author. The audit trail methodically describes the step-by-step processes and decision-making throughout the study. Review of this audit trail occurs prior to manuscript development and enhances study confirmability. 1,16 The peer reviewer offers a critique of the study methods and validation of the conclusions drawn by the author as a thorough check on researcher bias.

Triangulation also plays a role in data analysis, as the term can also be used to describe how multiple sources of data can be used to confirm or refute interpretation, assertions, themes, and study conclusions. If a theme or theory can be arrived at and validated using multiple sources of data, the result of the study has greater credibility and confirmability. 16,33,36 Should any competing or controversial theories emerge during data collection or analysis, it is vital to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study that the author disclose and explore those negative cases. Negative case analysis refers to actively seeking out and scrutinizing data that do not fit or support the researcher’s interpretation of the data. 16

The use of best practices applying to data collection and data analysis facilitates the full examination of data relative to the study purpose and research question and helps to prevent premature closure of the study. Rather than stopping at the initial identification of literal, first-level assertion statements and themes, authors must progress to interpreting how results relate to, revise, or expand the conceptual framework, or offer an improved theory or model for explaining the study phenomenon of interest. Closing the loop on data collection is critical and is achieved when thorough and valid analysis can be linked back to the conceptual framework, as addressed in the next section.

Step 4: Drawing Valid Conclusions

Lingard and Kennedy 38 succinctly state that the purpose of qualitative research is to deepen one’s understanding of specific perspectives, observations, experiences, or events evidenced through the behaviors or products of individuals and groups as they are situated in specific contexts or circumstances. Conclusions generated from study results should enhance the conceptual framework, or contribute to a new theory or model development, and are most often situated within the discussion and conclusion sections of a manuscript.

The discussion section should include interpretation of the results and recommendations for practice. Interpretations should go beyond first-level results or literal description of observed behaviors, patterns, and themes from analysis. The author’s challenge is to provide a complete and thorough examination and explanation of how specific results relate to each other, contribute to answering the research question, and achieve the primary purpose of the research endeavor. The discussion should “close the loop” by integrating study results and analysis with the original conceptual framework. The discussion section should also provide a parsimonious narrative or graphical explanation and interpretation of study results that enhances understanding of the targeted phenomena.

The conclusion section should provide an overall picture or synopsis of the study, including its important and unique contributions to the field from the perspective of both conceptual and practical significance. The conclusion should also include personal and theoretical perspectives and future directions for research. Together, the discussion and conclusion should include responses to the larger questions of the study’s contributions, such as: So what? Why do these results matter? What next?

The strength of conclusions is dependent upon the extent to which standards of rigor and best practices were demonstrated in design, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation, as described in previous sections of this article. 4,12,17,23,24 Quality and rigor expectations for drawing valid conclusions and generating new theories are reflected in the following essential features of rigor and quality, which include: “Close the loop” to clearly link research questions, study design, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of results. Reflect effective integration of the study results with the conceptual framework and explain results in ways that relate, support, elaborate, and/or challenge conclusions of prior scholarship. Descriptions of new or enhanced frameworks or models are clear and effectively grounded in the study results and conclusions. Practical or theoretical implications are effectively discussed, including guidance for future studies. Limitations and issues of reflexivity and ethics are clearly and explicitly described, including references to actions taken to address these areas. 3,4,12,14

Step 5: Reporting Research Results

Key to quality reporting of qualitative research results are clarity, organization, completeness, accuracy, and conciseness in communicating the results to the reader of the research manuscript. O’Brien and others 4 proposed a standardized framework specifically for reporting qualitative studies known as the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR, Table 2 ). This framework provides detailed explanations of what should be reported in each of 21 sections of a qualitative research manuscript. While the SRQR does not explicitly mention a conceptual framework, the descriptions and table footnote clarification for the introduction and problem statement reflect the essential elements and focus of a conceptual framework. Ultimately, readers of published work determine levels of credibility, trustworthiness, and the like. A manuscript reviewer, the first reader of a study report, has the responsibility and privilege of providing critique and guidance to authors regarding achievement of quality criteria, execution and reporting of standards of rigor, and the extent to which meaningful contributions to thinking and practice in the field are presented. 13,39

An Adaptation of the 21 Elements of O’Brien and Colleagues’ Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) 4

Authors must avoid language heavy with connotations or adjectives that insert the researcher’s opinion into the database or manuscript. 14,40 The researcher should be as neutral and objective as possible in interpreting data and in presenting results. Thick and rich descriptions, where robust descriptive language is used to provide sufficient contextual information, enable the reader to determine credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability .

The process of demonstrating the credibility of research is rooted in honest and transparent reporting of how biases and other possible confounders were identified and addressed throughout study processes. Such reporting, first described within the study’s conceptual framework, should be revisited in reporting the work. Confounders may include the researcher’s training and previous experiences, personal connections to the background theory, access to the study population, and funding sources. These elements and processes are best represented in Glassick’s criteria for effective presentation and reflective critique ( Table 1 , criteria 5 and 6). Transferability is communicated, in part, through description of sampling factors such as: geographical location of the study, number and characteristics of participants, and the timeframe of data collection and analysis. 40 Such descriptions also contribute to the credibility of the results and readers’ determination of transfer to their and other contexts. To ensure dependability, the research method must be reported in detail such that the reader can determine proper research practices have been followed and that future researchers can repeat the study. 40 The confirmability of the results is influenced by reducing or at a minimum explaining any researcher influence on the result by applying and meeting standards of rigor such as member checking, triangulation, and peer review. 29,33

In qualitative studies, the researcher is often the primary instrument for data collection. Any researcher biases not adequately addressed or errors in judgement can affect the quality of data and subsequent research results. 33 Thus, due to the creative interpretative and contextually bound nature of qualitative studies, the application of standards of rigor and adherence to systematic processes well-documented in an audit trail are essential. The application of rigor and quality criteria extend beyond the researcher and are also important to effective peer review processes within a study and for scholarly dissemination. The goal of rigor in qualitative research can be described as ensuring that the research design, method, and conclusions are explicit, public, replicable, open to critique, and free of bias. 41 Rigor in the research process and results are achieved when each element of study methodology is systematic and transparent through complete, methodical, and accurate reporting. 33 Beginning the study with a well-developed conceptual framework and active use of both researcher reflexivity and rigorous peer review during study implementation can drive both study rigor and quality.

As the number of published qualitative studies in health professions educational research increases, it is important for our community of health care educators to keep in mind the unique aspects of rigor in qualitative studies presented here. Qualitative researchers should select and apply any of the above referenced study methods and research practices, as appropriate to the research question, to achieve rigor and quality. As in any research paradigm, the goal of quality and rigor in qualitative research is to minimize the risk of bias and maximize the accuracy and credibility of research results. Rigor is best achieved through thoughtful and deliberate planning, diligent and ongoing application of researcher reflexivity, and honest communication between the researcher and the audience regarding the study and its results.

Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research in clinical pharmacy

• Research Article
• Published: 14 December 2015
• Volume 38 , pages 641–646, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Muhammad Abdul Hadi 1 &
• S. José Closs 2  

17k Accesses

107 Citations

Explore all metrics

The use of qualitative research methodology is well established for data generation within healthcare research generally and clinical pharmacy research specifically. In the past, qualitative research methodology has been criticized for lacking rigour, transparency, justification of data collection and analysis methods being used, and hence the integrity of findings. Demonstrating rigour in qualitative studies is essential so that the research findings have the “integrity” to make an impact on practice, policy or both. Unlike other healthcare disciplines, the issue of “quality” of qualitative research has not been discussed much in the clinical pharmacy discipline. The aim of this paper is to highlight the importance of rigour in qualitative research, present different philosophical standpoints on the issue of quality in qualitative research and to discuss briefly strategies to ensure rigour in qualitative research. Finally, a mini review of recent research is presented to illustrate the strategies reported by clinical pharmacy researchers to ensure rigour in their qualitative research studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Qualitative Research: Ethical Considerations

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.

Google Scholar  

Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:42–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Anderson C. Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(8):6 Article 141 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Appl Nurs. 2006;53:304–10.

Long T, Johnson M. Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eeffect Nurs. 2000;4:30–7.

Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigour in qualitative research revisited. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1993;16:1–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1:13–22.

Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18:34–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:1245–51.

Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 1995.

Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Edu Inform. 2004;22:63–75.

Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in feminist research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1986;8:27–37.

Nguyen TST. Peer debriefing. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. 2008. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/sage-encyc-qualitative-research-methods/n312.xml . Accessed 5 June 2014.

Ogunbayo OJ, Schafheutle EI, Cutts C, Noyce PR. A qualitative study exploring community pharmacists’ awareness of, and contribution to, self-care support in the management of long-term conditions in the United Kingdom. Res Soc Adm Pharm 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2014 [Published online Feb, 2015].

Shiyanbola OO, Mort JR. Exploring consumer understanding and preferences for pharmacy quality information. Pharm Pract. 2014;12:1–11.

Murphy A, Szumilas M, Rowe D, et al. Pharmacy students’ experiences in provision of community pharmacy mental health services. Can Pharm J. 2014;147:55–65.

Ryder H, Aspden T, Sheridan J. The Hawke’s Bay Condom Card Scheme: a qualitative study of the views of service providers on increased, discreet access for youth to free condoms. Int J Pharm Pract. 2015. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12178 .

Ziaei Z, Hassell K, Schafheutle EI. Internationally trained pharmacists’ perception of their communication proficiency and their views on the impact on patient safety. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2015;11:428–41.

Hasan S, Stewart K, Chapman CB, Hasan MY, Kong DCM. Physicians’ attitudes towards provision of primary care services in community pharmacy in the United Arab Emirates. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12157 .

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Marquis J, Schneider MP, Spencer B, Bugnon O, Pasquier SD. Exploring the implementation of a medication adherence programme by community pharmacists: a qualitative study Int J. Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1014–22.

Swain L, Griffits C, Lisa Pont L, Barclay L. Attitudes of pharmacists to provision of home medicines review for indigenous Australians. Int. J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1260–7.

Brazinha I, Fernandez-Llimos F. Barriers to the implementation of advanced clinical pharmacy services at Portuguese hospitals Int J. Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1031–8.

Odukoya OK, Stone JA, Chui MA. Barriers and facilitators to recovering from e- prescribing errors in community pharmacies. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2015;55:52–8.

Download references

No funding from any governmental or non-governmental agency was obtained for this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Umm-Al-Qura University, Al-Abdia, Makkah, 13578, Saudi Arabia

Muhammad Abdul Hadi

School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, LS2 9UT, Leeds, UK

S. José Closs

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Abdul Hadi .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

None declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hadi, M.A., José Closs, S. Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research in clinical pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm 38 , 641–646 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0237-6

Download citation

Received : 16 August 2015

Accepted : 08 December 2015

Published : 14 December 2015

Issue Date : June 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0237-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical pharmacy
• Qualitative research
• Trustworthiness
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Login to your account

If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password

If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password

• AACP Member Login      Submit

Download started.

• PDF [516 KB] PDF [516 KB]
• Figure Viewer
• Download Figures (PPT)
• Add To Online Library Powered By Mendeley
• Add To My Reading List
• Export Citation
• Create Citation Alert

A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research

• Jessica L. Johnson, PharmD Jessica L. Johnson Correspondence Corresponding Author: Jessica L. Johnson, William Carey University School of Pharmacy, 19640 Hwy 67, Biloxi, MS 39574. Tel: 228-702-1897. Contact Affiliations William Carey University School of Pharmacy, Biloxi, Mississippi Search for articles by this author
• Donna Adkins, PharmD Donna Adkins Affiliations William Carey University School of Pharmacy, Biloxi, Mississippi Search for articles by this author
• Sheila Chauvin, PhD Sheila Chauvin Affiliations Louisiana State University, School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana Search for articles by this author
• qualitative research design
• standards of rigor
• best practices

INTRODUCTION

• Denzin Norman
• Lincoln Y.S.
• Google Scholar
• Anderson C.
• Full Text PDF
• Scopus (584)
• Santiago-Delefosse M.
• Stephen S.L.
• Scopus (85)
• Scopus (32)
• Levinson W.
• Scopus (506)
• Dixon-Woods M.
• Scopus (440)
• Malterud K.
• Midtgarden T.
• Scopus (205)
• Wasserman J.A.
• Wilson K.L.
• Scopus (68)
• Barbour R.S.
• Sale J.E.M.
• Scopus (12)
• Fraser M.W.
• Scopus (37)
• Sandelowski M.
• Scopus (1571)

BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH

Step 1: identifying a research topic.

• Scopus (288)
• Creswell J.
• Maxwell J.A.
• Glassick C.E.
• Maeroff G.I.
• Scopus (269)

• Scopus (279)
• Ringsted C.
• Scherpbier A.
• Scopus (132)
• Ravitch S.M.

• View Large Image
• Download Hi-res image
• Download (PPT)
• Huberman M.

Step 2: Qualitative Study Design

• Whittemore R.
• Mandle C.L.
• Scopus (987)
• Marshall M.N.
• Scopus (2232)
• Horsfall J.
• Scopus (185)
• O’Reilly M.
• Scopus (1072)
• Burkard A.W.
• Scopus (168)
• Patton M.Q.
• Scopus (364)
• Scopus (4280)
• Johnson R.B.

Step 3: Data Analysis

Step 4: drawing valid conclusions.

• Swanwick T.
• Swanwick T.O.
• O’Brien B.C.
• Harris I.B.
• Beckman T.J.
• Scopus (5009)

Step 5: Reporting Research Results

• Shenton A.K.
• Scopus (4221)

Article info

Publication history, identification.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120

ScienceDirect

• Download .PPT

Related Articles

• Access for Developing Countries
• Articles & Issues
• Articles In Press
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Journal Information
• About Open Access
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Editorial Team
• History of AJPE
• Contact Information
• For Authors
• Guide for Authors
• Researcher Academy
• Rights & Permissions
• Submission Process
• Submit Article
• For Reviewers
• Reviewer Instructions
• Reviewer Frequently Asked Questions

The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.

• Privacy Policy   
• Terms and Conditions   
• Accessibility   
• Help & Contact

MS in Nursing (MSN)

A Guide To Qualitative Rigor In Research

Advances in technology have made quantitative data more accessible than ever before; but in the human-centric discipline of nursing, qualitative research still brings vital learnings to the health care industry. It is sometimes difficult to derive viable insights from qualitative research; but in the article below, the authors identify three criteria for developing acceptable qualitative studies.

Qualitative rigor in research explained

Qualitative rigor. It’s one of those terms you either understand or you don’t. And it seems that many of us fall into the latter of those two categories. From novices to experienced qualitative researchers, qualitative rigor is a concept that can be challenging. However, it also happens to be one of the most critical aspects of qualitative research, so it’s important that we all start getting to grips with what it means.

Rigor, in qualitative terms, is a way to establish trust or confidence in the findings of a research study. It allows the researcher to establish consistency in the methods used over time. It also provides an accurate representation of the population studied. As a nurse, you want to build your practice on the best evidence you can and to do so you need to have confidence in those research findings.

This article will look in more detail at the unique components of qualitative research in relation to qualitative rigor. These are: truth-value (credibility); applicability (transferability); consistency (dependability); and neutrality (confirmability).

Credibility

Credibility allows others to recognize the experiences contained within the study through the interpretation of participants’ experiences. In order to establish credibility, a researcher must review the individual transcripts, looking for similarities within and across all participants.

A study is considered credible when it presents an interpretation of an experience in such a way that people sharing that experience immediately recognize it. Examples of strategies used to establish credibility include:

• Reflexivity
• Member checking (aka informant feedback)
• Peer examination
• Peer debriefing
• Prolonged time spent with participants
• Using the participants’ words in the final report

Transferability

The ability to transfer research findings or methods from one group to another is called transferability in qualitative language, equivalent to external validity. One way of establishing transferability is to provide a dense description of the population studied by describing the demographics and geographic boundaries of the study.

Ways in which transferability can be applied by researchers include:

• Using the same data collection methods with different demographic groups or geographical locations
• Giving a range of experiences on which the reader can build interventions and understanding to decide whether the research is applicable to practice

Dependability

Related to reliability in quantitative terms, dependability occurs when another researcher can follow the decision trail used by the researcher. This trail is achieved by:

• Describing the specific purpose of the study
• Discussing how and why the participants were selected for the study
• Describing how the data was collected and how long collection lasted
• Explaining how the data was reduced or transformed for analysis
• Discussing the interpretation and presentation of the findings
• Explaining the techniques used to determine the credibility of the data

Strategies used to establish dependability include:

• Having peers participate in the analysis process
• Providing a detailed description of the research methods
• Conducting a step-by-step repetition of the study to identify similarities in results or to enhance findings

Confirmability

Confirmability occurs once credibility, transferability and dependability have been established. Qualitative research must be reflective, maintaining a sense of awareness and openness to the study and results. The researcher needs a self-critical attitude, taking into account how his or her preconceptions affect the research.

Techniques researchers use to achieve confirmability include:

• Taking notes regarding personal feelings, biases and insights immediately after an interview
• Following, rather than leading, the direction of interviews by asking for clarifications when needed

Reflective research produces new insights, which lead the reader to trust the credibility of the findings and applicability of the study

Become a Champion of Qualitative Rigor

Clinical Nurse Leaders, or CNLs, work with interdisciplinary teams to improve care for populations of patients. CNLs can impact quality and safety by assessing risks and utilizing research findings to develop quality improvement strategies and evidence-based solutions.

As a student in Queens University of Charlotte’s online Master of Science in Nursing program , you will solidify your skills in research and analysis allowing you to make informed, strategic decisions to drive measurable results for your patients.

Request more information to learn more about how this degree can improve your nursing practice, or call 866-313-2356.

Adapted from: Thomas, E. and Magilvy, J. K. (2011), Qualitative Rigor or Research Validity in Qualitative Research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16: 151–155. [WWW document]. URL  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x  [accessed 2 July 2014]

Recommended Articles

Tips for nurse leaders to maintain moral courage amid ethical dilemmas, relationship between nursing leadership & patient outcomes, day in the life of a clinical nurse leader®, 8 leadership skills nurses need to be successful, the rise of medical errors in hospitals, get started.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness

Despite a growing interest in quaLitative research in occupationaL therapy, littLe attention has been pLaced on establishing its rigor. This article presents one modeL that can be used for the assessment of trustworthi-ness or merit of qualitative inquiry. Cuba's (1981) modeL describes four generaL criteria for evaLuation of research and then defines each from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. SeveraL strategies for the achievement of rigor in qualitative research usefuL for both researchers and consumers of research are described.

Related Papers

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association

Cheryl Custard

As a profession, occupational therapy has been repeatedly confronted with the challenge to prove the value of occupation as a therapeutic medium. The types of research pursued by occupational therapists have evolved in response to societal trends, external pressures, and the priorities of individual practitioners. Although many therapists have reconciled the pursuit of research with the roots of occupational therapy through an adherence to naturalistic methods, others continue to value experimental research designs. This article explores the rise of qualitative research methods in occupational therapy and addresses the current dilemma between naturalistic and positivistic designs.

Sarina Goldstand

American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Claire-Jehanne Dubouloz

Occupational therapists are increasingly urged to carry out evidenced-based practice; however, little is known regarding their present practice and perceptions of evidence-based practice. To explore this phenomenon, a qualitative study was completed using a grounded theory approach. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with eight occupational therapists who worked in diverse practice settings. Participants were asked to reflect on their own views of evidence-based practice and their use of evidence in therapy. Data were analyzed inductively using constant comparison analysis. Participants’ perceptions of evidence-based practice were described in three broad categories. To these occupational therapists, evidence-based practice is: (a) a process of looking for understanding; (b) associated with research, and; (c) a potential threat to the occupational therapist. These findings produce a basis from which recommendations are made to increase the use of evidence-based practice by ...

Lesley Garcia

Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy

Susanne Guidetti

This study was conducted in the context of a randomized controlled trial where occupational therapists (OTs) in collaboration with researchers implemented a client-centred activity of daily living intervention (CADL) for persons with stroke. The aim was to identify and describe over time the OTs' experiences regarding the collaboration with the researcher in their role as implementers of a new complex intervention. Focus group interviews were conducted with 33 OTs, two, six and 12 months after they had participated in a five-day workshop. The interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Three categories were identified: (1) Including in the scientific world, (2) Involving as an implementer of science and (3) Integrating in a partnership. One core category emerged: The implementation of client-centred intervention enabled the fusion of practice and science. An increased experience of using CADL and support from the researchers changed the OTs' attitudes towards ...

Joseph K Wells

Cheryl Mattingly

Many constructs of interest to occupational therapists can only be studied through qualitative methods. Such constructs include meaning of activity or the illness experience and the context in which these occur. The purpose of this paper is to describe how ethnographic methods used in research can be generalized and applied to clinical practice. Ethnography is compared with other qualitative research approaches and a model clinical ethnographic assessment process is described.

Tore Bonsaksen

RELATED PAPERS

The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Enrico Milano

Takis Fotopoulos

Diabetes & Metabolism

Wouter Moolenaar

African Journal of Applied Zoology and …

Timothy Hohn

Chien Nguyen

Alzheimer's & Dementia

Martine Perret

Brazilian Journal of Development

Regiane De Nadai

Territoires féministes en Amérique latine : voix périphériques II

Paulina Ultreras

Fisheries Research

Jeremy Mendoza

Cilon estivalet

Journal of Innovative Science Education

Ani Rusilowati

International Journal of Research Publications

Selvi Nafianti

Annamari Vänskä

Dirasat: Educational Sciences

Hazim Momani

Journal of Medical Systems

Dr. Abhishek Majumdar

edoardo massimilla

Journal of Affective Disorders

Jarrett Richardson

Microbiology and immunology

The EMBO Journal

Heinz Saedler

Canberra毕业证文凭堪培拉大学本科毕业证书 澳洲学历学位认证如何办理

Journal of energy and power engineering

Wael Mokhtar

Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications

Hideki Sato

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024