Validity and Reliability

Although validation of findings occurs throughout the steps in the research process, this discussion focuses on
how the researcher writes a passage in a proposal or study on the procedures to be undertaken to validate the
proposed study’s findings. Researchers need to convey the steps they will take in their studies to check for the
accuracy and credibility of their findings. Validity does not carry the same connotations in qualitative research
that it does in quantitative research; nor is it a companion to reliability (examining stability) or generalizability
(the external validity of applying results to new settings, people, or samples), topics discussed in Chapter 8.
Qualitative validity means that the researcher checks for the accuracy of the findings by employing certain
procedures, whereas qualitative reliability indicates that the researcher’s approach is consistent across different
researchers and among different projects (Gibbs, 2007).

Defining qualitative validity. Validity is one of the strengths of qualitative research and is based on
determining whether the findings are accurate from the standpoint of the researcher, the participant, or
the readers of an account (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Terms abound in the qualitative literature that
address validity, such as trustworthiness, authenticity, and credibility (Creswell & Miller, 2000), and it is a
much-discussed topic (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011).
Using multiple validity procedures. A procedural perspective that we recommend for research proposals is
to identify and discuss one or more strategies available to check the accuracy of the findings. Researchers
should actively incorporate validity strategies into their proposals. We recommend the use of multiple
approaches, which should enhance the researcher’s ability to assess the accuracy of findings as well as
convince readers of that accuracy. There are eight primary strategies, organized from those used most
frequently and easiest to implement to those used occasionally and more difficult to implement:
Triangulate different data sources by examining evidence from the sources and using it to build a
coherent justification for themes. If themes are established based on converging several sources of
data or perspectives from participants, then this process can be claimed as adding to the validity of
the study.
Use member checking to determine the accuracy of the qualitative findings by taking the final report
or specific descriptions or themes back to participants and determining whether these participants
feel that they are accurate. This does not mean taking back the raw transcripts to check for
accuracy; instead, the researcher takes back parts of the polished or semi-polished product, such as
the major findings, the themes, the case analysis, the grounded theory, the cultural description,
and so forth. This procedure can involve conducting a follow-up interview with participants in the
study and providing an opportunity for them to comment on the findings.
Use a rich, thick description to convey the findings. This description may transport readers to the
setting and give the discussion an element of shared experiences. When qualitative researchers
provide detailed descriptions of the setting, for example, or offer many perspectives about a theme,
the results become more realistic and richer. This procedure can add to the validity of the findings.
Clarify the bias the researcher brings to the study. This self-reflection creates an open and honest

274
 narrative that will resonate well with readers. Reflexivity has already been mentioned as a core
characteristic of qualitative research. Good qualitative research contains comments by the
researchers about how their interpretation of the findings is shaped by their background, such as
their gender, culture, history, and socioeconomic origin.
Present negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes. Because real life is
composed of different perspectives that do not always coalesce, discussing contrary information
adds to the credibility of an account. A researcher can accomplish this by discussing evidence
about a theme. Most evidence will build a case for the theme; researchers can also present
information that contradicts the general perspective of the theme. By presenting this contradictory
evidence, the account becomes more realistic and more valid.
Spend prolonged time in the field. In this way, the researcher develops an in-depth understanding
of the phenomenon under study and can convey detail about the site and the people that lends
credibility to the narrative account. The more experience that a researcher has with participants in
their settings, the more accurate or valid will be the findings.
Use peer debriefing to enhance the accuracy of the account. This process involves locating a person
(a peer debriefer) who reviews and asks questions about the qualitative study so that the account
will resonate with people other than the researcher. This strategy—involving an interpretation
beyond the researcher and invested in another person—adds validity to an account.
Use an external auditor to review the entire project. As distinct from a peer debriefer, this auditor
is not familiar with the researcher or the project and can provide an objective assessment of the
project throughout the process of research or at the conclusion of the study. The role is similar to
that of a fiscal auditor, and specific questions exist that auditors might ask (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). The procedure of having an independent investigator look over many aspects of the project
(e.g., accuracy of transcription, the relationship between the research questions and the data, the
level of data analysis from the raw data through interpretation) enhances the overall validity of a
qualitative study.
Using qualitative reliability. How do qualitative researchers check to determine if their approaches are
reliable (i.e., consistent or stable)? Yin (2009) suggested that qualitative researchers need to document
the procedures of their case studies and to document as many of the steps of the procedures as possible.
He also recommended setting up a detailed case study protocol and database, so that others can follow
the procedures. Gibbs (2007) suggested several qualitative reliability procedures:
Check transcripts to make sure that they do not contain obvious mistakes made during
transcription.
Make sure that there is not a drift in the definition of codes, a shift in the meaning of the codes
during the process of coding. This can be accomplished by continually comparing data with the
codes and by writing memos about the codes and their definitions (see the discussion on a
qualitative codebook).
For team research, coordinate the communication among the coders by regular documented
meetings and by sharing the analysis.
Cross-check codes developed by different researchers by comparing results that are derived

275
 independently. Proposal writers need to include several of these procedures as evidence that they
will have consistent results in their proposed study. We recommend that several procedures be
mentioned in a proposal and that single researchers find another person who can cross-check their
codes for what is called intercoder agreement (or cross-checking) (also see Guest et al., 2012;
Creswell, 2016). Such an agreement might be based on whether two or more coders agree on
codes used for the same passages in the text. It is not that they code the same passage of text;
rather they determine whether another coder would code it with the same or a similar code.
Reliability subprograms in qualitative computer software packages can then be used to determine
the level of consistency of coding. Miles and Huberman (1994) recommended that the consistency
of the coding be in agreement at least 80% of the time for good qualitative reliability.
Qualitative generalization is a term used in a limited way in qualitative research, since the intent of this
form of inquiry is not to generalize findings to individuals, sites, or places outside of those under study
(see Gibbs, 2007, for his cautionary note about qualitative generalizability). In fact, the value of
qualitative research lies in the particular description and themes developed in the context of a specific
site. Particularity rather than generalizability (Greene & Caracelli, 1997) is the hallmark of good
qualitative research. However, there are a few discussions in the qualitative literature about
generalizability, especially as applied to case study research in which the inquirer studies several cases.
Yin (2009), for example, felt that qualitative case study results can be generalized to some broader
theory. The generalization occurs when qualitative researchers study additional cases and generalize
findings to the new cases. It is the same as the replication logic used in experimental research. However,
to repeat a case study’s findings in a new case setting requires good documentation of qualitative
procedures, such as a protocol for documenting the problem in detail and the development of a
thorough case study database.

276