PLEASE RESPONSE TO THIS THREAD 300 WORDS OR MORE building upon the original thread or offering a contrasting viewpoint.
PLEASE RESPONSE TO THIS THREAD BELOW 300 WORDS OR MORE building upon the original thread or offering a contrasting viewpoint. :
Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Research
For any research, accuracy and consistency are important, as is limiting error and generating beneficial and dependable findings (Roberts & Priest, 2006). Synonyms to explain reliability and validity are many, and in qualitative research these include credibility, transferability, and dependability. Despite that qualitative research has been increasingly used to make contributions in many fields because qualitative research can capture the meanings people attach to a phenomenon (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007), the validity and reliability of qualitative research are more heavily scrutinized than quantitative research. This is due to the subjective and interpretive nature of qualitative research (Creswell, 2014; Roberts & Priest, 2006). Roberts and Priest (2006) reported that research findings should be believable, accurate, and useful (as cited in Creswell, 1998).
Quantitative research is deemed valid, or credible, due to the randomness of research subjects, the fact that researchers disassociate themselves from the participants, the studies are dependent on an instrument other than the researcher, results can be duplicated, and the purpose is to explain versus generate an understanding (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). Similarly, qualitative research is deemed valid if it produces legitimate results (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). According to Creswell & Poth (2018), validity for qualitative research is possible when researchers seek “a confluence of evidence that breeds credibility” (p. 256) and validation in qualitative research means having the characteristic of being trustworthy with the research generating new dialogue, questions, and answers (as cited in Angen, 2000). Creswell (2014) indicated that qualitative validity is equal to verifying the accuracy of the findings.
Reliability in qualitative research is associated with “stability of responses to multiple coders of the data sets” (Creswell & Poth, 2018), “consistent similarity in the quality of the results” (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008), and the researcher approach being consistent (Crewsell, 2014) and accepted by the research community (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). Reliability in quantitative research stems from statistical results that have consistency (Roberts & Priest, 2006).
Multiple strategies can be used to ensure validity in qualitative research, such as triangulation, member checking, rich description, prolonged time in the field, and use of external auditors (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018). According to Creswell & Poth, 2018), various validation strategies can be used by qualitative researchers and at least two of the three should be employed in every study: the researcher’s lens, the participant’s lens, and the reader’s or reviewer’s lens.
Reliability and validity vary with each qualitative approach and according to Creswell and Poth (2018), there is less emphasis on validation for narrative design than on the other qualitative designs. When using the narrative approach, the focus needs to be on an individual and on rich and thick description that is free of researcher bias with the participants agreeing the results are accurate, and other accounts need to be similar (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In phenomenological research, quality occurs when researcher influences do not hinder participants’ descriptions, transcriptions are accurate, the study is rigorous including all alternatives being identified during analysis, when the phenomenon is clear and articulated concisely, the overall essence of the experience is communicated, and when the structural description connects to originally reported experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Corbin and Strauss identified many checkpoints related to the quality of grounded theory research. Some of these are that a process is studied, multiple sources of data are collected and collected ethically, data saturation is met, memoing and coding are utilized, theoretical modeling is presented, findings are fresh and can contribute to development of policies or procedural changes (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Ethnographic research is often evaluated for quality based on whether extensive fieldwork has been conducted, multiple data sources have been utilized, the description of the cultural-sharing group includes how the group works, themes are identified, and the research is forthcoming about interactions with the group of participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Lastly, Yin (2014) identified criteria for quality case study research that includes providing significance of the case’s issues in theoretical, policy or practical terms, being complete with extensive data collection and with descriptions about the boundaries, considering all possible perspectives, displaying sufficient evidence, and presenting the case in an engaging manner.
In my ADRP study, I could easily employ the strategies of 1) triangulation, by using multiple data sources in tandem to corroborate evidence, 2) using reviewers to do an external audit to ensure accuracy and 3) clarifying my bias by disclosing and illuminating my past experiences, biases, and orientation. These are important to develop a thorough study that is authentic and to frame the content for the reader.
Those, and other strategies, are necessary because the Bible guides us: “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John, 8:32, ESV). Being truthful, accurate, complete, consistent, and dependable are vital in every aspect of life. This includes research because research is used to set or change structure, policy, or procedures, to advance knowledge and understanding, to develop theories and solve problems, and more. As Christians, it is our responsibility to present authentic research so that the findings can be used productively.
Collingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American Journal of Medical Quality, 23(5), 389-395
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?. Quality & Quantity, 41(2), 233-249.
Roberts, P., & Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard 20(44), 41-45.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications design and methods. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.