Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Qualitative Rigor or Research Validity in Qualitative Research jspn_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 terms
Credibility, confirmability, dependability, novice,
qualitative rigor, reliability and validity,
transferability.

Author contact
eileen.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 community
of qualitative scholars, this concept may be one of
the most critical aspects of qualitative research.
Rigor, in qualitative terms, and reliability/validity,
in quantitative terms, are ways to establish trust or
confidence in the findings or results of a research
study. Rigor is useful for establishing consistency of
the study methods over time and provides an accu-
rate representation of the population studied. In
other words, rigor provides details as a means to
replicate a study with a different research sample.
The focus of this article is to address the unique
attributes of qualitative research relative to qualita-
tive rigor, which is similar to reliability and validity
used in quantitative research.
Oxford College Dictionary (2007) defines rigor as
the quality of being extremely thorough, exhaus-
tive, or accurate. The term “rigor” literally means
stiffness, from the Latin word rigere to be stiff, and
implies rigidity, harshness, strict precision, unyield-
ing, or inflexible. The term qualitative rigor itself is
an oxymoron, considering that qualitative research
is a journey of explanation and discovery that does
not lend to stiff boundaries. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) were the first to address rigor in their model
of trustworthiness of qualitative research. We will
discuss qualitative rigor and highlight the ways rigor
or trustworthiness is typically described among
qualitative scholars.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH IN CONTRAST TO
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
The first step toward gaining an understanding
of rigor is a foundational understanding of the
differences between qualitative and quantitative
research. “The fox knows many things, but the
hedgehog knows one big thing,” a verse from the
seventh-century Greek poet Archilochus, is a meta-
phor used to provide an accurate but simplistic
description of the major differences between
quantitative and qualitative research (Eisner, 1998).
Referring to the Archilochus metaphor, foxes’
(quantitative researchers) attention is on breadth
by gathering a variety of information on which to
build knowledge, which typically results in generaliz-
able numeric results or outcomes. Breadth, for the
purpose of this article, refers to the ability to general-
ize quantitative results across a large number of cases
or subjects. Foxes prefer questions that can be
answered in many different ways. Quantitative
research and analysis is like the fox: The focus is to
gather information quickly from a variety of data
points. Foxes tend to cover a lot of ground (generaliz-
ability), meaning the research findings or conclu-
sions from a sample population can be extended to
apply to the population at large.
In contrast, hedgehogs (qualitative researchers)
tend to focus their attention on depth by identifying
a single phenomenon while burrowing deep. Depth,
for the purpose of this article, refers to the ability or

Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 151
Scientific Inquiry
need to gain a deep understanding of a specific
phenomena/experience with a limited number of
participants. 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 that
of the hedgehog, staying focused on a single spot
(phenomena/experience). Qualitative researchers
typically collect a lot more information on one
topic, phenomena, or experience to enrich their
desired understanding. The purpose of qualitative
research is not to generalize to other subjects or set-
tings, but to explore deeply a specific phenomenon
or experience on which to build further knowledge
or to develop a more patient-focused practice that is
sensitive to the research participants.
Not to negate the value of quantitative research,
as both have value and can provide support and
balance to a study, the intent of qualitative research
is to provide a close-up view, a deeper and richer
understanding within a specific context, which can
be missed in quantitative research. Researchers may
use both quantitative and qualitative methods
within a single study to discover something that
would have been missed if only a quantitative
approach had been used, to use findings from one
method to inform the other method, or to expand
the breadth and depth of a single study. Researchers
may use a qualitative approach for one phase of a
study, then a quantitative approach for the second
phase of the same study or the reverse. This is called
a mixed-method design, where both numerical and
text data are collected. Mixed-method research is
like conducting two mini-studies within one overall
research study. Two types of data are collected
sequentially or concurrently. One type of data pro-
vides a basis for collection of another type of data.
For instance, some researchers may conduct an
experiment (quantitative study) then, after the
experiment, conduct an interview or focus group
(qualitative) with the participants to see how the
participants viewed the experiment or to see if they
agreed with the results. One of the authors (Thomas,
in press) used qualitative methods to gain an
in-depth understanding of women’s breast cancer
screening behaviors and then used the qualitative
data to develop an instrument that will be evaluated
using traditional quantitative methods. For a
program evaluation, one might develop an instru-
ment that can be used to measure the effectiveness
of a parent support intervention in a neonatal
intensive care unit by first holding focus groups or
interviews to explore the parent perceptions of or
152
E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy
meanings inherent in the neonatal intensive care
unit experience.
Often used to test existing theories or models,
with smaller amounts of data collected with a large
number of subjects, for example, surveys; the focus
of 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 a
valid instrument, and a larger amount of data is col-
lected with a smaller number of participants, for
example, focus groups or interviews.
QUALITATIVE RIGOR
Lincoln and Guba (1985), in their classic work on
naturalistic inquiry, explained the basic question of
qualitative research rigor, “How can an inquirer per-
suade his or her audiences (including self) that the
findings 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 as
nurses in practice settings who hope to build practice
on the best evidence, need to have confidence and
trust in the research findings presented. Different
models are available that address how to build trust
in qualitative research, such as the model of trust-
worthiness of qualitative research proposed by
Lincoln and Guba. This model addresses four com-
ponents of trustworthiness that are relevant to
qualitative 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 to
recognize the experiences contained within the
study through the interpretation of participants’
experiences. Achievement of credibility occurs by
checking for the representativeness of the data as a
whole. To establish credibility, a researcher will
review the individual transcripts, looking for simi-
larities within and across study participants. As
stated in a classic article by Krefting (1991, p. 218),
“A qualitative study is considered credible when it
presents an accurate description or interpretation of
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy
human experience that people who also share the
same experience would immediately recognize.”
Examples of strategies used to establish credibility
include reflexivity, member checking, and peer
debriefing or peer examination. Member checking
(also known as informant feedback) involves
returning to the persons from whom data were gen-
erated (a qualitative term for data collection) to
ensure that the interpretations (reported as catego-
ries and themes) of the researcher are recognized by
the participants as accurate representations of their
experiences. For example, the researcher may ask all
participants involved in the study, or select two or
three articulate participants from a focus group
session to review the focus group transcripts and
interpretations of the focus group data. The
researcher will ask peers or consultants experienced
in the qualitative analysis process to review and
discuss the coding process (Holloway, 1997). In
addition, prolonged and varied time spent with the
participants, interview techniques, and the tran-
scripts, while writing the final report and using the
words of the participants, are strategies used to
strengthen the credibility of a study. “When quanti-
tative researchers speak of research validity and reli-
ability, they are usually referring to a research that
is credible while the credibility of a qualitative
research depends on the ability and effort of the
researcher” (Golafshani, 2003, p. 600).
Transferability
The ability to transfer research findings or methods
from one group to another, or “how one determines
the extent to which the findings of a particular
inquiry have applicability in other contexts or with
other subjects/participants,” is called transferability
in qualitative language, equivalent to external vali-
dity in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
p. 290). One strategy to establish transferability is
to provide a dense description of the population
studied by providing descriptions of demographics
and geographic boundaries of the study. The first
author (Thomas & Usher, 2009) replicated her 2009
study by using the same data collection methods first
with a group of African American women, then with
a group of Hispanic women. Recruitment inclusion
criteria were the same for both groups, and study
findings yielded similar results. Likewise, a nurse
caring for families with a child living with autism
might read qualitative research studies that might
not exactly describe the experience of each family in
the caseload but, rather, would give a range of expe-
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Scientific Inquiry
riences on which to build interventions and under-
standing. This understanding informs the fit or
applicability of the research to practice. Maloni et al.
(2010) used a qualitative descriptive approach to
explore Bangladesh mothers’ perceptions of their
children’s. A nurse might consider using the same
methods with mothers in the United States. Meert,
Briller, Schim, Thurston, and Kabel (2009) used
qualitative methods (individual interviews and
focus groups) to explore the needs of bereaved
parents in a Midwestern urban children’s hospital
pediatric intensive care unit. Other researchers
might consider using similar methods at other chil-
dren’s hospitals in different geographic locations to
see if results are similar to the results in the Meert
et al. study. Clark, Bunik, and Johnson (2010) used
participant observation and semi-structured inter-
views in Colorado and northern New Mexico to
explore curanderos’ practices related to childhood
obesity prevention in Latino families. These
researchers found working with the curanderos
problematic, first, because it was difficult to locate
the number of curanderos eligible to participate in
the study and, second, because the researchers per-
ceived that these curanderos may have seen the
researchers as “representing an opposing and even
antagonistic worldview” (Clark et al., 2010, p. 10).
Repeating the study methods with Latino research-
ers or research assistants, and/or a different group of
curanderos in a different geographic location might
yield different results.
Dependability
Dependability, related to reliability in quantitative
terms, occurs when another researcher can follow
the decision trail used by the researcher. An audit
trail is achieved by (a) describing the specific
purpose of the study; (b) discussing how and why
the participants were selected for the study; (c)
describing how the data were collected and how
long the data collection lasted; (d) explaining how
the data were reduced or transformed for analysis;
(e) discussing the interpretation and presentation of
the research findings; and (f) communicating the
specific 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, or conducting a step-by-step
repeat of the study to see if results might be similar or
to enhance the original findings (replication is not a
term, as a rule, used in qualitative research because
153
Scientific Inquiry
like a river, the water is not the same even if one’s
stance and perspective from the bank is from the
same spot).
Confirmability
Confirmability, similar to objectivity in quantitative
terms, occurs when credibility, transferability, and
dependability have been established. The qualitative
research must be reflective, maintaining a sense of
awareness and openness to the study and unfolding
results. The term reflexivity, similar to construct
validity in quantitative research, requires a self-
critical attitude on the part of the researcher about
how one’s own preconceptions affect the research.
Immediately following each individual and focus
group interview, the researcher will write or audio-
tape record field notes regarding personal feelings,
biases, and insights. In addition, the researcher
should make a conscious effort to follow, rather than
lead, 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 view
with interpretations that produce new insights,
allowing for developing confirmability of the
research and, overall, leading the reader or consumer
of the research to have a sense of trust in the conduct
credibility of findings and applicability of the study.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NOVICE QUALITATIVE
RESEARCHER
Qualitative research is not intended to be scary or
beyond the grasp of a novice. Rather, nurses practice
elements 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 develop
competence as a qualitative researcher, a nurse
builds upon her/himself as an instrument of the
research. We bring all of our past experiences and
knowledge into the qualitative research setting but
learn, over time, to set aside our own strongly held
perceptions 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 to
begin the qualitative journey. A novice researcher
might want to be a coinvestigator with a more exper-
ienced qualitative researcher as the techniques
154
E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy
described above and in the previous article by the
authors (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009) are often learned
best in a mentored setting. Having a shared research
project not only promotes mentoring but also
expands the understandings gained, as each
researcher’s perspective is included through the two
different lenses.
Paying attention to the qualitative rigor and model
of trustworthiness from the moment of conceptual-
ization of the research is essential. Researchers who
use interviewing often plan for a second interview for
each or some of the participants, and write this activ-
ity into the proposal. A second interview allows both
the participant and the researcher to reflect on the
original conversation, fills in missing pieces or new
information, and provides assurance that the partici-
pant’s words and experiences were accurately
described. A different setting for the second interview
also may expand the description.
For example, an interview conducted with an ado-
lescent during hospitalization about the experience
of recovering from a major surgical procedure may be
different from the interview conducted later in the
home. While encouraging examination for accuracy
of the original interview text, the adolescent may
reflect on the hospital experience more holistically
after returning to the home and school environment,
and may add or fill in missing pieces. The researcher
may also review some emerging findings from other
participants, which, while not this participant’s direct
experience, the participant may recognize this
experience as plausible for people like themselves.
This type of member checking enhances the credibil-
ity of a study.
Novice and experienced qualitative researchers will
agree that qualitative research is an experience of
discovery and understanding that transcends one’s
own experience and enriches the practice experi-
ence and evaluations of the quality of care. Attend-
ing to the rigor of qualitative research is an essential
part of the qualitative research journey and provides
an opportunity for critique and further development
of the science.
Eileen Thomas, PhD, RN
Assistant Professor
College of Nursing, University of Colorado Denver
Aurora, Colorado, USA
Joan Kathy Magilvy, PhD, RN, FAAN
Professor & Associate Dean for Academic Programs
College of Nursing, University of Colorado Denver
Aurora, Colorado, USA
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
E. Thomas and J. K. Magilvy
References
Clark, L., Bunik, M., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). Research
opportunities with curanderos to address childhood
overweight in Latino families. Qualitative Health Research,
20(1), 4–14. doi:10.1177/1049732309355285
Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry
and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and
validity 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: The
assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of
Occupational 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 qualitative
project: Qualitative descriptive design for novice
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16 (2011) 151–155 © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Scientific Inquiry
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 with
disability in Bangladesh: Implications for rehabilitation
service 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 bereaved
parents in the pediatric intensive care unit: A qualitative
study. 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 the
women’s breast conflict scale: A predictive instrument.
The Qualitative Report.
Thomas, E., & Usher, L. (2009). One more hurdle to
increasing mammography screening: Pubescent,
adolescent, and prior mammography screening
experiences. Women’s Health Issues, 19(6), 425–433.
doi:10.1080/07481180903070434
155