1.

3 Critiquing Qualitative Data Analysis (Data Validation)

Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001), analyzed 13 writings about validation and came up with key
validation criteria from these studies. They classified these criteria into primary and secondary criteria.
They found 4 primary criteria which are:

 Credibility (Are the results an accurate interpretation of the participants’ meaning?)

 Authenticity (Are different voices heard?)

 Criticality (Is there a critical appraisal of all aspects of the research?)

 Integrity (Are the investigators self-critical?)

The secondary criteria are related to explicitness, vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and
sensitivity.

According to Creswell & Poth (2013) they consider “validation” in qualitative research as it is trying
to assess the “accuracy” of the results, as best described by the researcher, the participants, and the
readers. This indicate that any report of research is a representation by the author. They believe that
validation is used to emphasize a process, instead of verification made by extensive time spent in the
field, detailed description, and a close relationship between the researcher and the participants.

Steps in Ensuring Validity

The first step in ensuring validity is choosing a well-trained and skilled moderator (or facilitator). A good
moderator will check personal bias and expectations at the door. He or she is interested in learning as
much candid information from the research participants as possible, and respectful neutrality is a must if
the goal is valid qualitative research. For this reason, organizations often employ moderators from
outside the group or organization to help ensure that the responses are genuine and not influenced by
“what we want to hear.” For some academic applications, the moderator will disclose his or her
perspectives and biases in the reporting of the data as a matter of full disclosure.

While a good moderator is key, a good sample group is also essential. Are the participants truly
members of the segment from which they are recruited? Ethical recruiting is an important issue in
qualitative research, as data collected from individuals who are not truly representative of their segment
will not lead to valid results.
Another way to promote validity is to employ a strategy known as triangulation. To accomplish this, the
research is done from multiple perspectives. This could take the form of using several moderators,
different locations, multiple individuals analyzing the same data . . . essentially any technique that would
inform the results from different angles. For some applications, for example, an organization may
choose to run focus groups in parallel through two entirely different researchers and then compare the
results.

Validity in qualitative research can also be checked by a technique known as respondent validation. This
technique involves testing initial results with participants to see if they still ring true. Although the
research has been interpreted and condensed, participants should still recognize the results as authentic
and, at this stage, may even be able to refine the researcher’s understanding. When the study permits,
deep saturation into the research will also promote validity. If responses become more consistent
across larger numbers of samples, the data becomes more reliable.

Another technique to establish validity is to actively seek alternative explanations to what appear to be
research results. If the researcher is able to exclude other scenarios, he is or she is able to strengthen
the validity of the findings. Related to this technique is asking questions in an inverse format. While the
techniques to establish validity in qualitative research may seem less concrete and defined than in some
of the other scientific disciplines, strong research techniques will, indeed, assure an appropriate level of
validity in qualitative research.