Dear Chris,

The process of getting the summary of the findings reviewed by study participants is more like a confirmation. Perhaps, agreement from clinic staff can be considered as a type of triangulation. Also, support from previous studies would add to the validity of the findings of your study.

In my view, this should be mentioned in the summary and conclusion section rather than methods section.

Regards

Dear Ashu,

Thank you for your input! Yes, sounds like a good idea to separate between the participants' own 'confirmations' and the clinic staffs' experiences.

Best,

CH

Thank you, Tim. I will look into your suggested reference.

I have enjoyed reading Creswell's works on mixed-method methodology, so I am sure this one will be equally helpful.

Best,

Chris

This seems as a process of validation, in which the pax validate the emerging themes

member checking can also be problematic as you may have variation among the participants. Generally it is good to validate your interpretation during data collection .

Menber checking can also be problematic as you may have some diversity among participants. It is often best to validate your interpretation during data collection.

Menber checking can also be problematic as you may have some diversity among participants. It is often best to validate your interpretation during data collection.

Hi Chris, Member checking can sometimes be problematic as there may be diversity among the participants. It is often used to validate an individual interveiw to assure that you are interpreting them correctly.

• Hi Chris, Member checking can sometimes be problematic as there may be diversity among the participants. It is often used to validate an individual interveiw to assure that you are interpreting them correctly.

Hi Joan,

Yes, we did that as well. To make sure that we understood their descriptions and statements in the way they intended them be understood. This was also the case when we initiated the interviews, as we aimed to generate a shared understanding of key concepts in the study, such as: "health", "information", "social media" etc (the study had a focus on eHealth literacy).

Language of course was a critical factor, as the adolescents had varying cognitive and social skills as well as lived experiences.

I think it belongs in the methods section. Christopher- did you send a summary of just their interview to each interviewee or did you send the transcript of their interview? Jeannine

It seems much more like confirmation than triangulation.

Triangulation is typically used during the data collection phase to lead the researchers to both verify data as it emerges and to point to other avenues of exploration. Three methods of data collection is not always possible but can be done in certain circumstances. It increases validity, too. There are different types of ways of triangulating. I did a study of critical care nurses using 3 different data sources. I interviewed the nurses, observed them and analyzed their reports on the patients' charts. One of the outcomes of the three methods of collecting was the knowledge the nurses talked mostly about the crisis events that occurred. The observations and chart audits showed more of the routine activities that really dominated the nurses' practice.

I'm more inclined to place the confirmation steps you spoke of in the method section also and the end of the analysis.

Hi Chris

I believe it belongs in method section, procedure details.

It's more of validation/confirmation.

Best of Luck

Cheers

Thank you everyone for your answers. Collective learning (crowdsourcing), indeed!

I am glad you are in agreement on placing this text segment at the end of the method-section rather than in the discussion. I concur that this would qualify as more of a confirmation than a triangulation of the adolescents experiences.

Madeleine, speaking of triangulation, while we did not TRIangulate, we used screen-recordings during the interviews in addition to their talks. This study explored the adolescents’ eHealth literacy with regards to how they searched for and selected health information in social media - they also showed me their social media sources on a screen-recorded laptop. Thus, in addition to their talks, I could also see their social media platforms/accounts on the screen, which in one way validated what they said. It also assisted us during the interpretation of their statements.

triangulation is a weird concept as many are in the methods hence the problem. You would not have a problem had you begun with a purpose of your second stage. To tell you the truth I cannot understand from your posting what you actually did n Stage 2. Clearly you do not know either as you describe the "moves" but not the reasons for them. If you want to contest your initial research results, which would be the only fair thing to do, then you would have to have Stage 2 included in Methodology. Confirmation should be a result , not an afterthought.

I think this is a report-feedback to the participants in the study. In this sense, it would be reported in the method section. I wouldn´t call it triangulation, since triangulation is done while collecting data. I always send or share personally a report of the research to all participants at the end of the analysis and before writing other publications. It has never happen relevant disagreements. In case they occur, I would include these in the discussion.

I just received this article about member checks: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss10/11/