PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1309-0682

Orjinal Araştırma Makalesi | Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2019, Cil. 13(28) 145-156

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

Olgun Sadık

ss. 145 - 156   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.202.8   |  Makale No: MANU-1905-23-0002.R2

Yayın tarihi: Haziran 30, 2019  |   Okunma Sayısı: 58  |  İndirilme Sayısı: 112


Özet

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Qualitative Research; Quantitative Research, Validity, Reliability


Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır?

APA 6th edition
Sadik, O. (2019). A Discussion of the Concepts of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative and Quantitative Research . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(28), 145-156. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2019.202.8

Harvard
Sadik, O. (2019). A Discussion of the Concepts of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative and Quantitative Research . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(28), pp. 145-156.

Chicago 16th edition
Sadik, Olgun (2019). "A Discussion of the Concepts of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative and Quantitative Research ". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 13 (28):145-156. doi:10.29329/mjer.2019.202.8.

Kaynakça
  1. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. London, England: Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  2. Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378-395. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey, P. H. (1997). Finding your way around qualitative methods in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 18-22. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennett, J. (1990). Truth and Stability in Descartes' Meditations. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 20(1), 75-108. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  6. 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.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar]
  10. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. New York: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, R. N, E. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fidell, L. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Pearson Education Inc. [Google Scholar]
  13. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hammersley, M. (1995). Theory and evidence in qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 29(1), 55-66. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hammersley, M. (1987). Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 73-81. [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kirk, R. (2008). Statistics: An introduction. Chicago: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  22. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuzel, A. J., & Engel, J. D. (2001). Some pragmatic thoughts about evaluating qualitative health research. The Nature of Qualitative Evidence, 114-138. [Google Scholar]
  24. LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, C. J. G. (2012). Reconsidering constructivism in qualitative research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(4), 403-412. [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. [Google Scholar]
  27. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-301. [Google Scholar]
  28. Madison, G. B. (1991). Getting beyond objectivism (pp. 34-58). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  29. Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (1995). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
  30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 20-30. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mishler, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 415-443. [Google Scholar]
  32. 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. [Google Scholar]
  33. Morse, J. M. (1999). Myth# 93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 717-718. [Google Scholar]
  34. 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  [Google Scholar]
  35. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123. [Google Scholar]
  36. Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-based Nursing, 18(2), 34-35. [Google Scholar]
  37. Noor, K. B. (2008). Case study: a strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602. [Google Scholar]
  38. Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history (Vol. 3). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Roberts, P., Priest, H., & Traynor, M. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44), 41-45. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. [Google Scholar]
  41. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Strategies for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London, England: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12. [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith, J. (1984). The problem of criteria for judging qualitative inquiry. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 379- 391. [Google Scholar]
  44. Thanasegaran, G. (2009). Reliability and validity issues in research. Integration & Dissemination, 4, 35-40. [Google Scholar]
  45. 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.  [Google Scholar]
  46. Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283-290. [Google Scholar]