Scribd
Upload
109 views24 pages

Qualitative Inquiry: Trustworthiness: Quality Research Standards For

This document discusses standards for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research evaluations. It presents differing views on how to assess quality in qualitative versus quantitative research. The key framework presented is trustworthiness, which includes credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Strategies for establishing each component of trustworthiness are outlined, such as triangulation, thick description, and audit trails. Caution is advised that trustworthiness involves judgments by readers as well as evaluators' analytic practices. The document concludes by emphasizing rigorous adherence to trustworthiness standards in real-world qualitative evaluations.

Uploaded by

Rutu kharva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views24 pages

Qualitative Inquiry: Trustworthiness: Quality Research Standards For

This document discusses standards for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research evaluations. It presents differing views on how to assess quality in qualitative versus quantitative research. The key framework presented is trustworthiness, which includes credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Strategies for establishing each component of trustworthiness are outlined, such as triangulation, thick description, and audit trails. Caution is advised that trustworthiness involves judgments by readers as well as evaluators' analytic practices. The document concludes by emphasizing rigorous adherence to trustworthiness standards in real-world qualitative evaluations.

Uploaded by

Rutu kharva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 24

Quality Research Standards for

Qualitative Inquiry: Trustworthiness

[insert date]
Qualitative Methods
in Evaluation of Public
Health Programs
Session 8
The evaluation process
Learning objectives
By the end of the session, participants will be
able to:
 Discuss the relevance of trustworthiness in
qualitative evaluations
 Justify the choice of qualitative approach to be
applied to a particular evaluation
 Develop a plan for establishing trustworthiness
in a qualitative component of an evaluation
Differing schools of thought
How to assess quality
 Rigour and quality of qualitative data should be
measured according to the same standards as
quantitative data (Morse, et al.)
 Qualitative data should adhere to set standards
specifically designed for qualitative research
(Kvale, Lincoln,
& Guba)
 This should be assessed for each
individual study
Establishing quality
Shaking up the establishment
Kvale (1989) questioned the appropriateness of the “holy trinity of
science” used in quantitative evaluation when applied to qualitative
evaluation.
 Reliability
 Validity
 Generalizability
The paradigm behind qualitative
evaluation differs from quantitative
evaluation. In qualitative evaluation, we acknowledge
multiple constructed realities.
Trustworthiness is born

 Credibility  Internal validity


 Transferability  Generalizability
 Dependability  Reliability
 Confirmability  Objectivity

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G.


(1985). Naturalistic Inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trustworthiness
How we have confidence
in our findings

 To what extent can we place confidence in the


outcomes of the study?

 Do we believe what the evaluator


has reported?
Trustworthiness
Menu of options
Credibility
1. Prolonged engagement

2. Referential adequacy

3. Triangulation

4. Peer debriefing

5. Negative case analysis

6. Member checks
Trustworthiness
Menu of options
Credibility
 Prolonged engagement: Multiple points of contact with
your participants
 Referential adequacy: Method used to store raw data in
records to examine later and compare to other future
studies to show
the credibility of data
 Triangulation: Using multiple data sources and
methods in an evaluation to ensure the best possible
understanding
Trustworthiness
Menu of options
Credibility
 Peer debriefing: Having colleagues review and question
your findings and emergent hypotheses to see if they seem
reasonable and plausible
 Negative case analysis: Data that may indicate that there
are different patterns for different groups of participants, or
that something is different in a certain case
 Member checks: Going back to the participants and asking
if they agree with the findings or if there are other
explanations for the findings
Trustworthiness
Menu of options
Transferability
Thick/rich descriptions
 Participants’ voices
 Context
 Methodology
Trustworthiness
Menu of options
Dependability and confirmability
 Audit trail
o Raw data (notes, transcripts, photos, etc.)

o Data reconstruction and synthesis products (codebook)

o Process notes (memos and notes)

o Material relating to intentions and dispositions


(evaluation diaries and reflexivity)
Criteria for assessing
Trustworthiness
Question Issue Quantitative Qualitative
asked criteria criteria

Have we measured what we set out Truth value Internal validity Credibility
to measure?
How applicable are our results to Applicability External validity
Transferability
other subjects Generalizability
and other contexts?

Would our findings be repeated if Consistency Reliability


our evaluation were replicated in Dependability
the
same context with the
same subjects?
To what extent are our findings Neutrality Objectivity
affected by personal interests and Confirmability
biases?
A note of caution…
You may come across other evaluators who
adhere to a different paradigm
 Critical of trustworthiness for shifting the
responsibility from the evaluators to the reader to
decide if the findings are
worthy of trust
 Most strategies to ensure credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability happen in the
analytic
stage, instead of during the evaluation design or
data collection stages
(Morse, et al., 2002)
More strategies
Verification strategies for establishing reliability and
validity in qualitative
research (Morse, et al., 2002):
 Investigator responsiveness
 Methodological coherence
 Theoretical sampling
and sampling adequacy
 An active analytic stance
 Saturation
Putting quality first
Evaluation in the real world
Group activity
Putting quality first
Evaluation topic

Your team is conducting a qualitative


evaluation
of a violence against
women community intervention in
Tanzania.
Putting quality first
Setting the scene

Take it to Tanzania
Putting quality first: Activity 1
Evaluation in the real world
 Split into three groups
 Use the template
provided and indicate
(30 mins.):
o Your theoretical
planning, aspects of
trustworthiness
o Practical implementation
• E.g., how would you
conduct member checks?
 Present your plan to the class
o 10 mins. each
Class discussion
Summary
Rigorous qualitative research adheres
to standards of:
 Credibility—have we measured what we set out to
measure?
 Transferability—how applicable are
our results to other subjects and
other contexts?
 Dependability—would our findings be repeated if our
evaluation were replicated
in the same context with the same subjects?
 Confirmability—to what extent are our findings
affected by personal interests
and biases?
References

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand


Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Mays, N., &  Pope,C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care:
Assessing quality in qualitative research, BMJ; (320):50–52.
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J.
(2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity
in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods; 1(2):13–22.
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness, and rigor: Quality and
the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing;
53(3):304–10.
References (continued)

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative


research. Advances in Nursing Science; 8(3):27–37.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria
for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist
for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for
Quality in Health Care;19(6):349–57.
Yin, R.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Ltd.
This presentation was produced with the support of the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of
MEASURE Evaluation cooperative agreement
AID-OAA-L-14-00004. MEASURE Evaluation is implemented by the
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in
partnership with ICF International; John Snow, Inc.; Management Sciences
for Health; Palladium; and Tulane University. Views expressed are not
necessarily those of USAID or the United States government.

www.measureevaluation.org

You might also like