A Discussion of the Concepts of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative and Quantitative Research

The purpose of this paper is discussing the main issues in conceptualizing reliability and validity between qualitative and quantitative research approaches. The researcher examined the arguments about validity and reliability in inquiry methodology and identified three main debates primarily in qualitative research. The first one was about qualitative inquirers’ limited emphasis on the data collection process to increase the robustness of their research efforts. Most of the strategies in qualitative research (e.g. peer debriefing, member check, audit trail) are used after completing the data collection procedures. Another important discussion in social inquiry was about what valid research means in qualitative paradigm. There are various interpretations of what validity is in qualitative research. This is due to epistemological grounds of qualitative research. Qualitative research does not accept a single truth. Reality is not fixed in qualitative research. It is concerned with cooperation of the multiple constructed realities to reach the contextual truth. The third debate reported in the literature was the discussion about reliability in qualitative research. It is evident that replication of any qualitative methods will not release the same results due to changing contextual conditions. Even though reliability has a long history in inquiry methodology discussions, some qualitative inquirers claim that reliability is not an appropriate concept for qualitative inquiry.

Bu çalışmanın amacı nitel ve nicel araştırma yaklaşımlarındaki geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik kavramları ile ilgili ana sorunları tartışmaktır. Çalışmanın yürütücüsü araştırma metodolojisi alanında geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik kavramlarını incelemiş ve özellikle nitel araştırma alanında üç temel tartışma tespit etmiştir. İlk tartışma konusu olarak nitel araştırmacıların çalışmalarını güçlendirmek için araştırma sürecindeki veri toplama aşamalarına az önem vermesi olmuştur. Bu amaçla kullanılan stratejiler (akran sorgusu, üye kontrolü, denetim izi) veri toplama süreçlerinin tamamlanmasından sonra işe koşulmaktadır ve araştırma sürecini sınırlı olarak güçlendirebilmektedir. Sosyal bilimlerdeki diğer bir tartışma konusu da nitel araştırmalarda geçerli araştırmanın tanımının ne olduğu ile ilgilidir. Nitel araştırmada geçerlilik kavramı ile ilgili birçok farklı yorumlama vardır. Bu tartışma nitel araştırmaların bilgi kuramı ile ilgili temellerine dayanır. Nitel araştırmalar doğrunun zaman ve mekâna bağlı olarak değişkenliğini savunur. Nitel araştırmada gerçek sabit değildir ve bağlamsal gerçeğe ulaşmak için birden çok inşa edilmiş gerçeğin birlikteliği ile ilgilenilir. Üçüncü tartışma konusu nitel araştırmalardaki güvenirlilik konusu ile ilgilidir. Şu apaçık ki nitel araştırmalarda tekrarlanan metotlar hiçbir zaman aynı sonuçları vermezler. Bu bağlamsal şartlardaki sürekli değişmeler araştırmacının süreçteki muhtemel değişken yorumlamaları ile ilgilidir. Güvenirlilik araştırma alanında uzun bir tartışma geçmişine sahip olsa da, bazı nitel araştırmacılar güvenirliliğin nitel araştırmalar için geçerli bir kavram olmadığını savunmaktadır.

PDF

___

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. London, England: Pearson Education.

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378-395.

Bailey, P. H. (1997). Finding your way around qualitative methods in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 18-22.

Bennett, J. (1990). Truth and Stability in Descartes' Meditations. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 20(1), 75-108.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Clark, A. M. (1998). The qualitative‐quantitative debate: Moving from positivism and confrontation to post‐positivism and reconciliation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(6), 1242-1249.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. New York: SAGE Publications.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, R. N, E. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill Education.

Fidell, L. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91.

Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hammersley, M. (1995). Theory and evidence in qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 29(1), 55-66.

Hammersley, M. (1987). Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 73-81.

Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118-126.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kirk, R. (2008). Statistics: An introduction. Chicago: Cengage Learning.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.

Kuzel, A. J., & Engel, J. D. (2001). Some pragmatic thoughts about evaluating qualitative health research. The Nature of Qualitative Evidence, 114-138.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.

Lee, C. J. G. (2012). Reconsidering constructivism in qualitative research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(4), 403-412.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 1-20.

Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-301.

Madison, G. B. (1991). Getting beyond objectivism (pp. 34-58). New York: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (1995). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 20-30.

Mishler, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 415-443.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.

Morse, J. M. (1999). Myth# 93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 717-718.

Morse, J.M. (1994) Designing funded qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123.

Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-based Nursing, 18(2), 34-35.

Noor, K. B. (2008). Case study: a strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602.

Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history (Vol. 3). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, P., Priest, H., & Traynor, M. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44), 41-45.

Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43-53.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Strategies for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London, England: SAGE Publications.

Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitativequalitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12.

Smith, J. (1984). The problem of criteria for judging qualitative inquiry. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 379- 391.

Thanasegaran, G. (2009). Reliability and validity issues in research. Integration & Dissemination, 4, 35-40.

Winter, G. (2000, March). A comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in qualitative and quantitative research. [58 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 4(3/4). Available: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283-290.