Introduction
Qualitative research refers to an inquiry method used in various academic disciplines. Traditionally, it was more common in social sciences, market research, as well as other contexts. The focus of qualitative researchers is to acquire an in- depth comprehension in regard to human behavior, and what aggravates such behavior. It is imperative to note that the qualitative method assesses the how and why in decisions making, in addition to when, where, and what. Hence, to fulfill this objective, smaller focused samples are common rather than monumental samples. Trustworthiness, dependability, or credibility is a central concern (Freeman et al, 2007). In quantitative studies, validity is the term used to refer to the same. Various methods can be used to establish the validity in quantitative studies. These include balance, bracketing, confirmability, auditability, negative case analysis, prolonged engagement, peer debriefing, interviewer corroboration, and member check. This paper aims at exploring triangulation, member checking, and structural coherence as measures of ensuring validity in studies. Moreover, there is a study analysis assessing the measures taken to ensure validity.
Methods of Ensuring Credibility
Triangulation
Triangulation is an extremely powerful tool for ensuring research quality, principally credibility. The underlying idea in triangulation is multiple perspectives convergence for data’s mutual confirmation to safeguard investigation of a phenomenon’s aspects (Freeman et al, 2007). Triangulated data sources get analysed against one another so as to cross- check interpretation, as well as data. It is worth noting that the criterion of offering several varying data slices reduces distortion, as a result of a biased researcher or single source of data. This is particularly the case when dealing with single client interviews and data with distinct, one measure application (Houser, 2009). Consequently, readers and researchers should address how the triangulation resulted to the approval of various aspects in the study, or to the completeness, in regard to addressing the phenomenon of interest.
There are several types of triangulation. Data methods’ triangulation is the most common, where there is a comparison of data gathered using various methods. The second triangulation, data sources’ triangulation, increases the data range which might assist in comprehending the concept completely (Weir et al, 2010). It relies on the significance of variety in person conducting the interview or observation, space, and time. For instance, triangulation sources include various days or seasons, groupings of people, and settings. Theoretical triangulation implies that competing or diverse theories’ ideas can be assessed. Lastly, investigators’ triangulation is common in study cases where there is a research team. Often, team members use diverse approaches.
Member Checking
A key thing in qualitative research credibility is the informants’ ability to identify their research findings’ experiences. With member checking, there is consistent testing of conclusions, interpretations, analytic categories, and researchers’ data, with the informants. Keeping the research materials open to informants guarantees that the researchers have included the viewpoint of the informants accurately. According to Freeman et al (2007), assessing the sensibility of data reduces misrepresentation chances. Member checking can be accomplished through interweaving the informant’s contact hours. This allows comparing information from an interview with a different informant prior to a subsequent interview, together with the first. Moreover, summarized tape interviews may be played so as to gather the informant’s responses. More to that, there can be extreme formalized work sessions, where several informants gather, and give their feedback to a result’s report or an analytical codes draft. A final or terminal member check, together with the principal informant, is necessary towards the end of the study. This allows testing of the general interpretation and safeguards that the data’s final presentation is an accurate reflection of the experience. Weir et al (2010) argue that member checking is easier when done during a research’s earlier stages, as opposed to latter stages. Identifying informants for the final member check is extremely grave. Irrespective of the significance of member checking in ensuring credibility, the strategy’s ethical aspect is extremely vital.
Structural Coherence
The validity of an argument can be ensured through establishing its structural coherence. Therefore, the researcher ensures the absence of unexplained inconsistencies between data and its interpretations. Irrespective of the fact that there may be data conflicts, credibility escalates if the interpretation elaborates the apparent contradictions. It is extremely noteworthy that deviant cases and rival explanations get accounted (Freeman et al 2007). Structural coherence depends on the manner in which a researcher integrates the immense loosely connected data masses into a holistic, logical picture in the report (Krefting, 1991).
Supporting a Claim in a Study and Reporting the Validity of Study Results
Physical Activity In Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study Of The Beliefs Of Overweight And Obese Pregnant Women
To ensure validity in the study, there was in- depth and semi- structured interviews, and their results compared. After conducting interviews, they were cross- checked with other informants, and recorded summarized reports were listened to by informants to gather their responses (Krefting, 1991). Moreover, there was the identification and elaboration of the study’s limitations. The interpretation explained the apparent contradictions. The choice of the member checker in the study was keenly selective, so as to ensure that he was unharmed after reading and handling the data. Furthermore, this ensured that he did not internalize the data, which would interfere with subsequent responses.
References
Freeman, M.; DeMarrais, K.; Preissle, J.; Roulston, K. & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of Evidence in Qualitative Research: An Incitement to Discourse. Educational Researcher 36, 25- 32.
Houser, R. (2009). Counseling and educational research: Evaluation and Application (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45 (3), 214- 222.
Weir, Z.; Bush, J.; Robson, S. C.; McParlin, C. Rankin, J. & Bell, R. (2010). Physical Activity in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study of the Beliefs of Overweight and Obese Pregnant Women. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 10 (18), 1-7.