Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research

Evidence-Based Nursing

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 34-35

  Noble, Helen ^a   Smith, Joanna ^b  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84926645305     PISSN: 13676539     EISSN: 14689618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/eb-2015-102054     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. Smith J, Noble H. Bias in research. Evid Based Nurs 2014;17:2-3.
2. Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 2006;53:304-10.
3. Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Adv Nurs Sci 1993;16:1-8.
4. Long T, Johnson M. Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eff Nurs 2000;4:30-7.
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.
8. Fraser S, Greenhalgh T. Coping with complexity: educating for capability. BMJ 2001;323:799-803.
9. Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a1035.
10. Noble H, Kelly D, Hudson P. Experiences of carers supporting dying renal patients, managed without dialysis. J Adv Nurs 2012;69:1829-39.