SUMMARY

The issue of whether a research finding is adequate for drawing conclusions, building theory, and guiding practice is crucial in all psychological research. Good scientific research, regardless of its philosophical stance, attempts to avoid personal bias, dogma, and superstition. This is what keeps science from being merely a forum for proselytizing one's own view. And this had been a major criticism of human science research and qualitative methods: it lacks rigor and therefore is open to bias. However, the problem of bias is a concern that human science researchers share with scientific psychologists. (We also recognize the paradox that since all research is guided by one's paradigm and beliefs about the nature or reality and research, there is always an element of one's own "bias" in all research.) Human science researchers have gone to some lengths to discuss the means for establishing rigor in their methods.

Qualitative methods are often criticized by psychologists for being less rigorous than quantitative methods. Using a perspective developed by Lincoln & Guba (1985) and others, Sandelowski (1986) shows how "qualitative research can be made rigorous without sacrificing its relevance" (p. 27).

CRITERIA FOR ADEQUACY

Lincoln & Guba identify four criteria for adequacy or rigor in scientific research. Each criterion has a concept associated with it in quantitative research and one in qualitative research. The characteristics of adequacy or rigor for quantitative research are probably familiar to anyone who has had an introductory class in psychological research. The criteria for qualitative research may be new. The following table draws on their work; the terms are explained below.

DEFINITIONS

From Sandelowski (1986) and Lincoln and Guba (1985)

Internal validity: In quantitative research, the elimination of alternative hypotheses such as history, maturation, testing effects, regression, instrumentation, subject selection, and mortality. Also relates to validity of instruments such as content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity.

External validity: In quantitative research, the generalizability of findings and the representativeness of subjects, tests, and testing situation.

Reliability: In quantitative research, the consistency, stability, and dependability of a test or testing procedure.

Objectivity: In quantitative research, the outcome of establishing internal and external validity and reliability. Based on distance between researcher and subjects; relationship is mediated by protocol, theory, and instrumentation.

Credibility: In qualitative research, presenting "such faithful descriptions or interpretations of a human experience that the people having that experience would immediately recognize it . . ." (p. 30). Also when others can recognize the experience by reading about it.

Fittingness: In qualitative research, when findings "fit" into contexts outside the study situation and when the audience views the findings as meaningful and applicable in terms of their own experience.

Auditability: In qualitative research, when another researcher can clearly follow the "decision trail" used by the investigator. In addition, another researcher could arrive at the same or comparable but not contradictory conclusions given the researcher's data, perspective, and situation.

Confirmability: In qualitative research, when auditability, fittingness, and credibility have been established. Based on engagement between researcher and subjects. Qualitative research values subjectivity rather than objectivity in two ways: the subjective involvement of investigators with their subjects and the emphasis on subjective reality or the meanings subjects give to and derive from their life experiences. Engagement with rather than detachment from the things to be known is sought in the interests of truth. Qualitative researchers acknowledge the complexities of this kind of involvement with subjects but view the benefits of it as far outweighing the liabilities.

AUDITABILITY

To achieve AUDITABILITY, the researcher describes, explains, or justifies:

1. how the researcher became interested in the subject matter of the study,
2. how the researcher views the thing studied,
3. the specific purpose(s) of the study,
4. how subjects or pieces of evidence came to be included in the study and how they were approached,
5. the impact the subjects or evidence and the researcher(s) had on each other,
6. how the data were collected,
7. how long data collection lasted,
8. the nature of the setting(s) in which data were collected,
9. how the data were reduced or transformed for analysis, interpretation, and presentation,
10. how various elements of the data were weighted,
11. the inclusiveness and exclusiveness of the categories developed to contain the data, and
12. the specific techniques used to determine the truth value and applicability of the data.

CREDIBILITY
AND
FITTINGNESS

To achieve CREDIBILITY and FITTINGNESS, the researcher may:

1. check for the representativeness of the data as a whole and of coding categories and examples used to reduce and present the data,
2. triangulate across data sources and data collection procedures to determine the congruence of findings among them,
3. check that descriptions, explanations, or theories about the data contain the typical and atypical elements of the data,
4. deliberately try to discount or disprove a conclusion drawn from the data, and
5. obtain validation from the subjects themselves.
6. Also, extensive contact with subjects and independent analysis of data by another researcher can serve to establish credibility.