13 Research methods, statistics, critical review and evidence-based practice13.7 Qualitative research
13.7.4.5 Triangulation and member checking
1 min read
Written by Resident Doctor Committee · Published
Credibility
Credibility asks whether a qualitative account fits the phenomenon it describes. Lincoln and Guba paired it with internal validity.
Researchers pursue credibility through triangulation, member checking, prolonged engagement, negative case analysis and peer debriefing.
Triangulation
Triangulation establishes credibility by comparing findings from different methods, data sources or perspectives to see whether they converge.
Denzin described four types.
Type | What is multiplied | Example |
|---|---|---|
Data source | Informant groups, times or settings describing the same phenomenon | Section 136 pathway told by patients, police and liaison nurses |
Investigator | Analysts working the same material | Restraint interviews coded independently by a psychiatrist and a sociologist |
Methodological | Data-collection methods exploring the same phenomenon | Interviews, overnight observation and incident records on enhanced observation |
Theoretical | Interpretive frameworks applied to one dataset | Antidepressant discontinuation read through illness representations and through stigma |
Methodological triangulation strengthens a qualitative study's findings.
Triangulation can reveal convergence, complementarity or contradiction, and none of these proves truth by itself.
Agreement is not independent confirmation when sources share assumptions, such as records written by the staff interviewed.
Member checking
Member checking returns material, such as a transcript, summary or interpretation, to participants for comment. Triangulation compares sources against each other, whereas member checking returns findings to participants.
Participants may correct errors, add detail or challenge an interpretation, and their responses become new data.
Endorsement is not a universal validity test, because views change, participants disagree, power pressures agreement and cross-case claims exceed any one person's view.