S C I E N T I F I C I N Q U I R Y

Qualitative Rigor or Research Validity in Qualitative Researchjspn_283 151..155

Eileen Thomas and Joan K. Magilvy

Column Editor: Lauren Clark

Scientific Inquiry provides a forum to facilitate the ongoing process of questioning and evaluating practice, presents informed practice based on available

data, and innovates new practices through research and experimental learning.

Search termsCredibility, confirmability, dependability, novice,

qualitative rigor, reliability and validity,

transferability.

Author contacteileen.thomas@UCDenver.edu, with a copy to

the Editor: roxie.foster@UCDenver.edu

doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x

Both novice and experienced qualitative research-ers often struggle with the term “qualitative rigor.”While frequently debated among the communityof qualitative scholars, this concept may be one ofthe most critical aspects of qualitative research.Rigor, in qualitative terms, and reliability/validity,in quantitative terms, are ways to establish trust orconfidence in the findings or results of a researchstudy. Rigor is useful for establishing consistency ofthe study methods over time and provides an accu-rate representation of the population studied. Inother words, rigor provides details as a means toreplicate a study with a different research sample.The focus of this article is to address the uniqueattributes of qualitative research relative to qualita-tive rigor, which is similar to reliability and validityused in quantitative research.

Oxford College Dictionary (2007) defines rigor asthe quality of being extremely thorough, exhaus-tive, or accurate. The term “rigor” literally meansstiffness, from the Latin word rigere to be stiff, andimplies rigidity, harshness, strict precision, unyield-ing, or inflexible. The term qualitative rigor itself isan oxymoron, considering that qualitative researchis a journey of explanation and discovery that doesnot lend to stiff boundaries. Lincoln and Guba(1985) were the first to address rigor in their modelof trustworthiness of qualitative research. We willdiscuss qualitative rigor and highlight the ways rigoror trustworthiness is typically described amongqualitative scholars.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH IN CONTRAST TOQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The first step toward gaining an understandingof rigor is a foundational understanding of thedifferences between qualitative and quantitativeresearch. “The fox knows many things, but thehedgehog knows one big thing,” a verse from theseventh-century Greek poet Archilochus, is a meta-phor used to provide an accurate but simplisticdescription of the major differences betweenquantitative and qualitative research (Eisner, 1998).Referring to the Archilochus metaphor, foxes’(quantitative researchers) attention is on breadthby gathering a variety of information on which tobuildknowledge,which typically results ingeneraliz-able numeric results or outcomes. Breadth, for thepurpose of this article, refers to the ability to general-ize quantitative results across a large number of casesor subjects. Foxes prefer questions that can beanswered in many different ways. Quantitativeresearch and analysis is like the fox: The focus is togather information quickly from a variety of datapoints. Foxes tend to cover a lot of ground (generaliz-ability), meaning the research findings or conclu-sions from a sample population can be extended toapply to the population at large.

In contrast, hedgehogs (qualitative researchers)tend to focus their attention on depth by identifyinga single phenomenon while burrowing deep. Depth,for the purpose of this article, refers to the ability or

Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing

151Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

need to gain a deep understanding of a specificphenomena/experience with a limited number ofparticipants. Hedgehogs are interested in a holistic,close-up view of many features (variables in quanti-tative terms) of a single phenomenon. The perspec-tive of qualitative research and analysis is like thatof the hedgehog, staying focused on a single spot(phenomena/experience). Qualitative researcherstypically collect a lot more information on onetopic, phenomena, or experience to enrich theirdesired understanding. The purpose of qualitativeresearch is not to generalize to other subjects or set-tings, but to explore deeply a specific phenomenonor experience on which to build further knowledgeor to develop a more patient-focused practice that issensitive to the research participants.

Not to negate the value of quantitative research,as both have value and can provide support andbalance to a study, the intent of qualitative researchis to provide a close-up view, a deeper and richerunderstanding within a specific context, which canbe missed in quantitative research. Researchers mayuse both quantitative and qualitative methodswithin a single study to discover something thatwould have been missed if only a quantitativeapproach had been used, to use findings from onemethod to inform the other method, or to expandthe breadth and depth of a single study. Researchersmay use a qualitative approach for one phase of astudy, then a quantitative approach for the secondphase of the same study or the reverse. This is calleda mixed-method design, where both numerical andtext data are collected. Mixed-method research islike conducting two mini-studies within one overallresearch study. Two types of data are collectedsequentially or concurrently. One type of data pro-vides a basis for collection of another type of data.For instance, some researchers may conduct anexperiment (quantitative study) then, after theexperiment, conduct an interview or focus group(qualitative) with the participants to see how theparticipants viewed the experiment or to see if theyagreed with the results. One of the authors (Thomas,in press) used qualitative methods to gain anin-depth understanding of women’s breast cancerscreening behaviors and then used the qualitativedata to develop an instrument that will be evaluatedusing traditional quantitative methods. For aprogram evaluation, one might develop an instru-ment that can be used to measure the effectivenessof a parent support intervention in a neonatalintensive care unit by first holding focus groups orinterviews to explore the parent perceptions of or

meanings inherent in the neonatal intensive careunit experience.

Often used to test existing theories or models,with smaller amounts of data collected with a largenumber of subjects, for example, surveys; the focusof qualitative research is breadth and precision.While qualitative research is focused on depth, rich-ness, and context, which can result in the emer-gence of a new theory, model, or development of avalid instrument, and a larger amount of data is col-lected with a smaller number of participants, forexample, focus groups or interviews.

QUALITATIVE RIGOR

Lincoln and Guba (1985), in their classic work onnaturalistic inquiry, explained the basic question ofqualitative research rigor, “How can an inquirer per-suade his or her audiences (including self) that thefindings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to,worth taking account of?” (p. 290). Philosophically,we know that a single, generalizable, external“truth” held and perceived by all would be impos-sible. Each person has her/his own personal perspec-tive, seen through the lens of cultural, experiential,environmental, and other contextual influences.However, researchers and their audiences, such asnurses in practice settings who hope to build practiceon the best evidence, need to have confidence andtrust in the research findings presented. Differentmodels are available that address how to build trustin qualitative research, such as the model of trust-worthiness of qualitative research proposed byLincoln and Guba. This model addresses four com-ponents of trustworthiness that are relevant toqualitative research: (a) truth–value (credibility);(b) applicability (transferability); (c) consistency(dependability); and (d) neutrality (confirmability).

Credibility

Credibility, similar to internal validity in quantita-tive research, is the element that allows others torecognize the experiences contained within thestudy through the interpretation of participants’experiences. Achievement of credibility occurs bychecking for the representativeness of the data as awhole. To establish credibility, a researcher willreview the individual transcripts, looking for simi-larities within and across study participants. Asstated in a classic article by Krefting (1991, p. 218),“A qualitative study is considered credible when itpresents an accurate description or interpretation of

Scientific Inquiry E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy

152 Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

human experience that people who also share thesame experience would immediately recognize.”Examples of strategies used to establish credibilityinclude reflexivity, member checking, and peerdebriefing or peer examination. Member checking(also known as informant feedback) involvesreturning to the persons from whom data were gen-erated (a qualitative term for data collection) toensure that the interpretations (reported as catego-ries and themes) of the researcher are recognized bythe participants as accurate representations of theirexperiences. For example, the researcher may ask allparticipants involved in the study, or select two orthree articulate participants from a focus groupsession to review the focus group transcripts andinterpretations of the focus group data. Theresearcher will ask peers or consultants experiencedin the qualitative analysis process to review anddiscuss the coding process (Holloway, 1997). Inaddition, prolonged and varied time spent with theparticipants, interview techniques, and the tran-scripts, while writing the final report and using thewords of the participants, are strategies used tostrengthen the credibility of a study. “When quanti-tative researchers speak of research validity and reli-ability, they are usually referring to a research thatis credible while the credibility of a qualitativeresearch depends on the ability and effort of theresearcher” (Golafshani, 2003, p. 600).

Transferability

The ability to transfer research findings or methodsfrom one group to another, or “how one determinesthe extent to which the findings of a particularinquiry have applicability in other contexts or withother subjects/participants,” is called transferabilityin qualitative language, equivalent to external vali-dity in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,p. 290). One strategy to establish transferability isto provide a dense description of the populationstudied by providing descriptions of demographicsand geographic boundaries of the study. The firstauthor (Thomas & Usher, 2009) replicated her 2009study by using the same data collection methods firstwith a group of African American women, then witha group of Hispanic women. Recruitment inclusioncriteria were the same for both groups, and studyfindings yielded similar results. Likewise, a nursecaring for families with a child living with autismmight read qualitative research studies that mightnot exactly describe the experience of each family inthe caseload but, rather, would give a range of expe-

riences on which to build interventions and under-standing. This understanding informs the fit orapplicability of the research to practice. Maloni et al.(2010) used a qualitative descriptive approach toexplore Bangladesh mothers’ perceptions of theirchildren’s. A nurse might consider using the samemethods with mothers in the United States. Meert,Briller, Schim, Thurston, and Kabel (2009) usedqualitative methods (individual interviews andfocus groups) to explore the needs of bereavedparents in a Midwestern urban children’s hospitalpediatric intensive care unit. Other researchersmight consider using similar methods at other chil-dren’s hospitals in different geographic locations tosee if results are similar to the results in the Meertet al. study. Clark, Bunik, and Johnson (2010) usedparticipant observation and semi-structured inter-views in Colorado and northern New Mexico toexplore curanderos’ practices related to childhoodobesity prevention in Latino families. Theseresearchers found working with the curanderosproblematic, first, because it was difficult to locatethe number of curanderos eligible to participate inthe study and, second, because the researchers per-ceived that these curanderos may have seen theresearchers as “representing an opposing and evenantagonistic worldview” (Clark et al., 2010, p. 10).Repeating the study methods with Latino research-ers or research assistants, and/or a different group ofcuranderos in a different geographic location mightyield different results.

Dependability

Dependability, related to reliability in quantitativeterms, occurs when another researcher can followthe decision trail used by the researcher. An audittrail is achieved by (a) describing the specificpurpose of the study; (b) discussing how and whythe participants were selected for the study; (c)describing how the data were collected and howlong the data collection lasted; (d) explaining howthe data were reduced or transformed for analysis;(e) discussing the interpretation and presentation ofthe research findings; and (f) communicating thespecific techniques used to determine the credibilityof the data. Strategies used to establish dependabilityinclude having peers participate in the analysisprocess, providing a detailed description of theresearch methods, or conducting a step-by-steprepeat of the study to see if results might be similar orto enhance the original findings (replication is not aterm, as a rule, used in qualitative research because

E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy Scientific Inquiry

153Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

like a river, the water is not the same even if one’sstance and perspective from the bank is from thesame spot).

Confirmability

Confirmability, similar to objectivity in quantitativeterms, occurs when credibility, transferability, anddependability have been established. The qualitativeresearch must be reflective, maintaining a sense ofawareness and openness to the study and unfoldingresults. The term reflexivity, similar to constructvalidity in quantitative research, requires a self-critical attitude on the part of the researcher abouthow one’s own preconceptions affect the research.Immediately following each individual and focusgroup interview, the researcher will write or audio-tape record field notes regarding personal feelings,biases, and insights. In addition, the researchershould make a conscious effort to follow, rather thanlead, the direction of the interviews by asking the par-ticipants for clarification of definitions, slang words,and metaphors. Like reflective practice (Johns,2009), reflective research allows a big picture viewwith interpretations that produce new insights,allowing for developing confirmability of theresearch and, overall, leading the reader or consumerof the research to have a sense of trust in the conductcredibility of findings and applicability of the study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NOVICE QUALITATIVERESEARCHER

Qualitative research is not intended to be scary orbeyond the grasp of a novice. Rather, nurses practiceelements of qualitative research every day in prac-tice when they use their skills of keen observation,clinical reasoning, patient centeredness, and explo-ration of how the context and meaning of an experi-ence of care may differ across children, parents,families, nurses, and others. Therefore, to developcompetence as a qualitative researcher, a nursebuilds upon her/himself as an instrument of theresearch. We bring all of our past experiences andknowledge into the qualitative research setting butlearn, over time, to set aside our own strongly heldperceptions and truly listen to the participants/subjects of our research to learn their stories, experi-ences, and meanings.

Qualitative descriptive studies are a good design tobegin the qualitative journey. A novice researchermight want to be a coinvestigator with a more exper-ienced qualitative researcher as the techniques

described above and in the previous article by theauthors (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009) are often learnedbest in a mentored setting. Having a shared researchproject not only promotes mentoring but alsoexpands the understandings gained, as eachresearcher’s perspective is included through the twodifferent lenses.

Paying attention to the qualitative rigor and modelof trustworthiness from the moment of conceptual-ization of the research is essential. Researchers whouse interviewing often plan for a second interview foreach or some of the participants, and write this activ-ity into the proposal. A second interview allows boththe participant and the researcher to reflect on theoriginal conversation, fills in missing pieces or newinformation, and provides assurance that the partici-pant’s words and experiences were accuratelydescribed. A different setting for the second interviewalso may expand the description.

For example, an interview conducted with an ado-lescent during hospitalization about the experienceof recovering from a major surgical procedure may bedifferent from the interview conducted later in thehome. While encouraging examination for accuracyof the original interview text, the adolescent mayreflect on the hospital experience more holisticallyafter returning to the home and school environment,and may add or fill in missing pieces. The researchermay also review some emerging findings from otherparticipants, which, while not this participant’s directexperience, the participant may recognize thisexperience as plausible for people like themselves.This type of member checking enhances the credibil-ity of a study.

Novice and experienced qualitative researchers willagree that qualitative research is an experience ofdiscovery and understanding that transcends one’sown experience and enriches the practice experi-ence and evaluations of the quality of care. Attend-ing to the rigor of qualitative research is an essentialpart of the qualitative research journey and providesan opportunity for critique and further developmentof the science.

Eileen Thomas, PhD, RNAssistant Professor

College of Nursing, University of Colorado DenverAurora, Colorado, USA

Joan Kathy Magilvy, PhD, RN, FAANProfessor & Associate Dean for Academic ProgramsCollege of Nursing, University of Colorado Denver

Aurora, Colorado, USA

Scientific Inquiry E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy

154 Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

References

Clark, L., Bunik, M., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). Researchopportunities with curanderos to address childhoodoverweight in Latino families. Qualitative Health Research,20(1), 4–14. doi:10.1177/1049732309355285

Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiryand the enhancement of educational practice. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability andvalidity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report,8(4), 597–607. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8 4/golafshani.pdf

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research.Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publications.

Johns, C. (2009). Becoming a reflective practitioner (3rd ed.).San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: Theassessment of trustworthiness. American Journal ofOccupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Magilvy, J. K., & Thomas, E. (2009). A first qualitativeproject: Qualitative descriptive design for novice

researchers. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing,14(4), 298–300. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00212.x

Maloni, P. K., Despres, E. R., Habbous, J., Primmer, A. R.,Slatten, J. B., Gibson, B. E., & Landry, M. D. (2010).Perceptions of disability among mothers of children withdisability in Bangladesh: Implications for rehabilitationservice delivery. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(10),845–854. doi:10.3109/096382809033260633

Meert, K. L., Briller, S. H., Schim, S. M., Thurston, C., &Kabel, A. (2009). Examining the needs of bereavedparents in the pediatric intensive care unit: A qualitativestudy. Death Studies, 33(8), 712–740. doi:10.1080/07481180903070434

Oxford College Dictionary. (2007). Rigor (2nd ed., p. 1174).New York: Spark.

Thomas, E. (in press). From qualitative data to thewomen’s breast conflict scale: A predictive instrument.The Qualitative Report.

Thomas, E., & Usher, L. (2009). One more hurdle toincreasing mammography screening: Pubescent,adolescent, and prior mammography screeningexperiences. Women’s Health Issues, 19(6), 425–433.doi:10.1080/07481180903070434

E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy Scientific Inquiry

155Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.