Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data

Trustworthiness in qualitative research is akin to the concepts of validity and reliability in quantitative research.

It refers to the degree of confidence researchers have in the accuracy and truthfulness of their findings.

Egon Guba proposed a model for evaluating the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries, which is often applied to qualitative research. The model consists of four key criteria:

While these criteria are presented as distinct, they are interconnected and mutually supportive.

They highlight the importance of rigor, transparency, and reflexivity in conducting and reporting qualitative studies.

By striving to meet these criteria, researchers can enhance the credibility and confidence in the findings of their qualitative research, contributing to a more trustworthy and meaningful body of knowledge.

Policymakers and practitioners rely on trustworthy research to make informed decisions.

Trustworthy qualitative studies provide valuable insights into human experiences and perspectives, which can be used to develop effective policies and improve service delivery.

1. Credibility (Truth Value)

Credibility, akin to internal validity in quantitative research, focuses on establishing confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings.

It focuses on the accuracy and plausibility of the findings and demonstrates that findings represent the true picture of the phenomenon.

It assesses whether the findings reflect the participants’ perspectives and experiences in a meaningful and believable way within the context in which the study took place.

Strategies for enhancing credibility include:

• Prolonged engagement: Spending sufficient time in the field to build rapport with participants and gain a deep understanding of their perspectives.
• Persistent observation: Carefully and consistently observing the phenomena of interest to ensure thorough data collection.
• Triangulation: Using multiple data sources, methods, or researchers to corroborate findings and enhance their credibility.
• Member checking: Allowing participants to review and verify the accuracy of the data, interpretations, and conclusions.

2. Transferability (Applicability)

Transferability is similar to external validity in quantitative research, and examines the extent to which the findings of a particular inquiry can be applied to other contexts or settings.

While generalizability is often not the goal in qualitative research, transferability seeks to determine if findings “fit into contexts outside the study situation that are determined by the degree of similarity or goodness of fit between the two contexts”.

Transferability is primarily the responsibility of the reader who wants to apply the findings to a new situation.

Strategies for enhancing transferability include:

• Providing rich, thick descriptions of the research context and participants.
• Clearly outlining the sampling procedures to show how participants were selected.
• Discussing the characteristics of the sample and their relevance to other groups.

3. Dependability (Consistency)

Dependability is comparable to reliability in quantitative research, and addresses the stability and consistency of the research findings over time.

It seeks to ensure that if the study were replicated with similar participants in a comparable context, consistent findings would emerge.

Strategies for enhancing transferability include:

• Maintaining a comprehensive audit trail of all research decisions and modifications.
• Employing systematic documentation methods, including dense descriptions of research procedures and the use of consistent coding techniques.
• Engaging in peer debriefing and utilizing strategies like stepwise replication or code-recode procedures to assess the stability of the findings.

4. Confirmability (Neutrality)

This criterion, replacing the concept of objectivity in quantitative research, emphasizes the degree to which the findings are a product of the data and not influenced by the researcher’s biases or interpretations.

Confirmability aims to demonstrate that the findings emerge from the data and not their own predispositions.

Strategies for enhancing confirmability include:

• Peer debriefing: Consulting with colleagues or experts to verify interpretations and minimize researcher bias.
• Member checking: Seeking participant feedback to ensure the findings accurately reflect their experiences.
• Reflexive journaling: Documenting researcher reflections and biases to enhance transparency and mitigate subjectivity.

Reading List

• Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria.
• Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj, 29(2), 75-91.
• Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American journal of occupational therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1982). Establishing dependability and confirmability in naturalistic inquiry through an audit.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 1986(30), 73-84.
• Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 2007(114).
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.