ESTABLISHING

TRUSTWORTHINESS
IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Arceli H. Rosario, PhD

Adventist International Institute of
Advanced Studies
Asian Qualitative Research Association
AQRA Colloquia Series 2020
OVERVIEW OF THE
PRESENTATION
— Issues in Qualitative Research
— Rigor and Trustworthiness
— Establishing Trustworthiness in QLR
◦ Credibility
– What is it?
– How to establish credibility?
◦ Transferability
– What is it?
– How to establish transferability?
◦ Dependability
– What is it?
– How to establish dependability?
◦ Confirmability
– What is it?
– How to establish dependability?
ISSUES IN QLR

— Lack of acceptance in
academic circles (Lietz, Langer,
& Furman, 2006;
— Lack of rigor (Cope, 2014)
— Unscientific (Carcary, 2009)
WHAT CRITERIA TO USE TO
EVALUATE QLR
1. Quantitative criteria: validity,
reliability, and generalizability
2. New criteria (Cope, 2014; Denzin, 1994;
Lincoln & Guba, 1981, 1985; Leininger, 1994)
3. QLR studies should be evaluated
using the same criteria (Krefting, 1990)
RIGOR AND TRUSTWORTHINESS

— Trustworthiness/rigor
(Amankwaa, 2016; Anney, 2015;
Cope, 2014; Harrison, MacGibbon,
& Morton, 2001; Krefting, 1991; Lietz,
Langer, & Furman, 2006; Poland,
1995; Rolfe, 2006; Sandelowski,
1993; Shenton, 2004)
RIGOR AND TRUSTWORTHINESS

— Trustworthiness (Carcary, 2009;

Korstjens & Moser, 2018; Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Sinkovics, Penz, & Ghauri, 2006)
More Terms
— Validity, credibility, rigor,
trustworthiness (Morrow,
2005)
Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative
Research - Research – Research – Research –
Rigour Evaluation Trustworthines Criteria for
Criteria Criteria s (Lincoln & Rigour
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; (Sandelowski,
Guba, 1981) 1989) 1986)
Internal Credibility Credibility Truth Value
Validity
External Fittingness Transferability Applicability
validity
Reliability Auditability Dependability Consistency
Objectivity Confirmability Confirmability Neutrality
EVALUATIVE CRITERIA

1. Credibility
2. Transferability
3. Dependability
4. Confirmability
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
CREDIBILITY
— The study measures or tests what is
actually intended (Shenton, 2004).
— “How congruent are the findings
with reality?” (Merriam, 1998)
— If the descriptions of human
experience are immediately
recognized by individuals that share
the same experience (Sandelowski,
1986).
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
CREDIBILITY
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

1. Prolonged engagement
2. Persistent observation
3. Triangulation
4. Peer debriefing
5. Negative case analysis
6. Referential adequacy
7. Member Checking
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
CREDIBILITY (Shenton, 2004)
8. Well-established research methods
9. Random sampling
10. Honesty in informants
11. Iterative questioning
12. Peer scrutiny
13. Researcher’s reflective commentary
14. Expertise of the researcher
15. Thick description of the phenomenon
16. Examination of previous research
findings
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
CREDIBILITY
17. Validity of data generation –
how appropriate a specific
research method is for answering
the research questions and
providing explanations (Carcary,
2009)
18. Validity of interpretation – how
convincing the data analysis
process and the researcher’s
interpretations are (Carcary, 2009)
TRANSFERABILITY
— Transferability to other settings
depends on the congruence
between the context in which the
research was conducted and the
context to which the research
findings are to be applied (Koch,
2006; Lewis & Ritchie, 2003).
— The reader/practitioner makes that
decision of congruence (Bassey,
1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
TRANSFERABILITY
1. Thick description of the context and
phenomena so as to enable others
to assess the findings’ transferability
(Lewis & Ritchie, 2003; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985)
 DEPENDABILITY
— Constancy of data over similar conditions
(Polit & Beck, 2012; Tobin & Begley, 2004)
— “If similar studies were conducted with
considerable care, one would anticipate
that the findings would NOT be entirely
DIFFERENT” (Carcary, 2009, p. 14).
— “From an interpretivist’s perspective,
reliability is concerned with demonstrating
that the researcher has not invented or
misrepresented data or been careless in
data recording or analysis (Mason, 2018).
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
DEPENDABILITY
1. External audit (Lincoln & Guba,
1985)
2. Detailed description of the
methodological procedures (Lewis
& Ritchie, 2003)
3. Detailed description of the
operational detail of data gathering
and evaluation of the effectiveness
of the process (Shenton, 2004)
CONFIRMABILITY
— Findings are the result of the
experiences and ideas of the
informants, rather than the
characteristics and preferences of the
researcher (Shenton, 2004)
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
CONFIRMABILITY
1. Confirmability/external audit
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
2. Audit trail (Lincoln & Guba,
1985)
3. Triangulation (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Shenton, 2004)
4. Reflexivity (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Shenton, 2004)
STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING
CONFIRMABILITY
5. Detailed methodological
description (Shenton, 2004)
SUMMARY
1. It is the responsibility of every
qualitative researcher to establish
trustworthiness of his or her study.
2. One framework (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, 1989) to use in establishing
trustworthiness is to address
credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability.
 REFERENCES
Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in
qualitative research. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(3), 121-127.
Anney, V. N. (2015). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative
research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging
Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 272-281.
Carcary, M. (2009). The research audit trail: Enhancing
trustworthiness in qualitative research. The Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 7(1), 11-24.
Cope, D. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and
trustworthiness of qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum,
41(1), 89-91.
Gunawan, J. (2015). Ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research.
Belitung Nursing Journal, 1(1), 10-11.
 REFERENCES
Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of
trustworthiness in qualitative research: The rigors of
reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 323-345.
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Practical guidance to
qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and
publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1),
120-124.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The
assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
Lietz, C. A., Langer, C. L., & Furman, R. (2006). Establishing
trustworthiness in qualitative research in social work.
Qualitative Social Work, 5, 441-458.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE.
 REFERENCES
Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in
qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.
Poggenpoel, M., & Myburgh, C. (2003). The researcher as
a research instrument. Education., 124(2), 418-420.
Poland, B. D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of
rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3),
290-310.
Rolfe, G. (2004). Validity, trustworthiness, and rigor. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis—The problem
of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in
Nursing Science, 16(2), 1-8.
 REFERENCES
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative
research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27–
37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198604000-
00005
Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness
in qualitative research projects. Education for
Information, 22, 63-75.
Sinkovics, R. R., Penz, E., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008).
Enhancing the trustworthiness in qualitative research.
Management International Review, 48(6), 689-714.
Tuckket, A. (2005). Rigour in qualitative research:
Complexities and solutions. Nurse Researcher, 13(1),
29-42.