RELIABILITY & VALIDITY

RELIABILITY vs VALIDITY

Validity in qualitative research means the appropriateness of the tools, processes and data (Leung, 2015). For example, whether a research question is valid for the desired outcome, the methodology is appropriate for answering the research question, the data analysis is appropriate, and therefore, the results are appropriate (Leung, 2015). It is noted that choice of methodology, such as narrative design, must enable detection of findings in the appropriate context to be considered valid (Leung, 2015).

Contrarily, according to Leung (2015), reliability refers to the exact replicability of the process and the results. Therefore, reliability with qualitative research rests within the consistency (Leung, 2015). This is echoed by Sion et al. (2020) who defines reliability of narrative methods as the degree to which the measurement is free from error. Narrative methods are subjective, and the interviewer is considered part of the method being delivered and can contribute to the reliability through training and practice, to ensure consistency (Sion, et al., 2020).

Golafshani (2003) indicates that many argue that reliability and validity have no place in qualitative research, a notion that Overcash (2004) reiterates. The idea of imposing validity within narrative research is considered by some to be a preoccupation with the empirical rather than the narrative standards that are considered as truth (Overcash, 2004).

RELIABILITY & VALIDITY IN NARRATIVE RESEARCH

With regard to narrative research, Overcash (2004) indicates validity and reliability to be much less structured than other forms of qualitative research. Narrative analysis can vary, as different studies can seem similar but differ theoretically (Overcash, 2004). For example, elements of a story can change over time, and through the perspective of the individual (Overcash, 2004). The validity can depend on the context rather than an exact match between even and description, and narrative research should be more concerned with collecting the most inclusive body of data rather than definitive (Overcash, 2004).

According to Sion et al., (2020), reliability and validity of narratives are usually assessed with four key components of trustworthiness:

credibility
transferability
dependability
conformability

However, it is important to note that these constructs are for qualitative data in general and are not specific to narrative research (Sion, et al., 2020).

An additional option are the concepts of face, construct and content viability, as outlined here (Sion, et al., 2020).

GENERALIZABILITY

An alternative to reliability or validity within narrative research is generalizability, which is the notion that what is revealed in one situation can be applied to another and therefore be representative of a population (Overcash, 2004). Within a nursing context, it would be up to the nurse reviewing the data to isolate relevant similarities that can be applied to a particular clinical situation (Overcash, 2004).

REFERENCES

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

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324.

Overcash, J. A. (2004). Narrative research: A viable methodology for clinical nursing. Nursing Forum 39(1).

Sion, K., Verbeek, H., Aarts, S., Zwakhalen, S., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Schols, J., & Hamers, J. (2020). The validity of connecting conversations: A narrative method to assess experienced quality of care in nursing homes from the resident's perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(14), 5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145100

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse