Hi Francesca,

I think we would need a little bit more context to answer your question properly. When you mean qualitative instruments, can you cite examples of the instruments that you are referring to?

Hi Harry. 

Thank you for your answer. 

I am trying to improve a methodology to assess Professional Identity. This methodology should include different level of analysis, such as qualitative content analysis and Social Network Analysis. This method was previously used and described in "A methodological approach for blended communities: Social network analysis and positioning network analysis". However, I was thinking that I don't know how to validate this kind of instruments. I don't know if I was able to explain better my question :)

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287550271_A_methodological_approach_for_blended_communities_Social_network_analysis_and_positioning_network_analysis?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=Q2NLOGnWSDNKjUbdhTmexWAWxCWODhoWMwdk&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfhpi&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BstandardItemCount%5D=3&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BuserSelectedItemCount%5D=0&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightCount%5D=0&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BstandardItemIndex%5D=2&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BstandardItem2of3%5D=1&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A287550271&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle 

Article A methodological approach for blended communities: Social ne...

I think I understand your question a little bit better now. Thank you for clarifying. It might be useful to remember that methods and methodology are two different things. Think of the research as an operation - methods will be the tools you will use during the operation but methodology is the purpose and strategy that underlies the whole of the operation.

Initially, I though you are only referring to a simple tool/instrument qualitatively. However, it seems that your question is based more on a method used as a part of an over all methodology.

Unlike most tools used in quantitative - i.e. positivist paradigms - have a very different way of demonstrating rigour - the factors of which includes validity, reliability and so on. In qualitative methodology, the implementation of the method is what constitutes the rigour. So instead of using terms such as validity and reliability, qualitative paradigms are using terms such as credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (see http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Lincoln%20and%20Guba.pdf). There is another school of thought that these criteria are just termed differently but the construct when compared to the positivist's notion of validity and reliability, are the same. Simply put, sometimes it is easier to demonstrate positivist validity and reliability with numbers, whereas, in interpretevist (qualitative) paradigms, these has to be demonstrated through various nuanced ways such as memoing, audit trails, triangulation methods, etc which are not readily visible in original journal articles.

So it might be worth looking at some key texts on rigour in qualitative research such as Lincoln and Guba, Silverman, and Miles and Huberman.

I'm not claiming an expert in the field but I hope this helps.

Quantitative instruments are usually designed to measure something, and validity refers to the extent to which they actually do capture what they are supposed to be measuring.

In contrast, the questions in qualitative research are open-ended and usually seek to learn more about the participants' thoughts or experiences on some topic. Hence, we typically do not refer to the issue of validity with regard to the questions in a qualitative interview because that would imply that they are measuring something, which is not the goal in this case.

Hello Francesca:

Qlt instruments can be validated if we accept a more ample meaning for the word “validation”.  I mean: in Qnt research, validation is about (a) reliability, in relation to the stability of the measures, and (b) validity: (b.1) construct validity, in relation to theoretical aspects of the model, and (b.2) content validity, related to the logical correctness of the model.

In Qlt research, given that there is no model on the “correct” measurement (because there are very few measures, and many Qlt aspects cannot be exactly measured), by analogy with Qnt research, it is preferred to talk about 2 main issues: (1) the replicability of processes and results, and (2) the trustworthiness or research integrity, and (3) some other forms of processes created to guarantee the reproduction of results, and the researcher’s honesty.

Now, this does not mean that you cannot validate a Qlt instrument, it just means that you must validate it in a different way, because you have no standardized measures to be applied.

On the other hand, this leads to a crucial question: WILL be possible to apply standard Qnt methods to the validation of Qlt research instruments? I think the answer is “Yes, in the future”.  I guess that will be possible IF we can achieve a method (and of course a theory) about the way that Qlt factors are mutually related in the realm of the researcher’s mind, and the realm of symbolic reality. 

Quite a task for the Epistemology of research as a science!  In this realm, I would like to suggest you to read my article on the Epistemology of the representation of the social change, which poses the first steps toward such a theory; this is here in RG in my profile, but it is in Spanish (see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262555270_Epistemologia_de_la_representacion_del_cambio_social). 

Best,

Antonio.

Article Epistemología de la representación del cambio social

Looking at Qualitative instrument validation look at the value it brings you and your peers. The cardinal approach is in quantitative instruments, so relative value for your outcomes are important. Peer group verification is as good as a statistical confirmation. you want to bring value with the outcome of your research and the participatory expereince is than an important factor. Good luck and be well.

The following papers should be helpful to your topic: 

• Creswell, J. W. and Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 3, pp. 124-131.
• Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 4, pp. 597-607.
• Maughan, E. D. (2009). Validity and Reliability: What Do These Terms Mean? NASN School Nurse, 24, 3, pp. 119-120.
• Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4, 3/4, pp. 1-14.  

There is a difference between demonstrating validity in a qualitative research project, which is about the credibility of the results, versus validating the questions that are being asked.

This distinction is quite clear in quantitative research, but because the issue of validating the questions almost never comes up in qualitative research, almost all the answers presented here are instead about the validity (credibility) of the results from qualitative research.

How to validate qualitative instruments?

Not sure the above term "instrument" in qualitative research context refers to preparation for data collection only or also include qualitative data analysis, coding, interpretation etc.  In qualitative research, actually the researcher is the instrument himself / herself - so validating the qualitative instrument might include:

Also came across some researchers / scholars don't agreed to use validity in the context of qualitative research, instead they prefer to use other terms like credibility, transferability, dependability etc. - you can refer to this link for further details:

https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php

Thank you for your answers. I began to go through some of the references that you suggested me and I found them very useful. During my reading, I was asking to myself another question. 

My goal is to improve a quanti-qualitative methodology (which should include three different methods) that other researchers could re-use in order to study "Identity". To achieve this goal, I need to show how my methodology works, in which way it allows to study Identity, whether this method is stronger than others to assess identity and so on...

From my understanding, the concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability refer to the trustworthiness of a given research. However, they cannot be used to assess the methodology itself. 

Having said that, yesterday I was thinking that if I assessed the trustworthiness of a given research, I could assert that my methodology might be good as well. 

So my new question is the following: in qualitative research can we assess the trustworthiness of a given research in order to "validate" its own methodology?

I hope that my question is clear. Thank you in advance for your help! 

Hello Francesca.

You can also have a look at the realm of Qlt research in the journal "The qualitative report", an excellent source of information. See at: http://tqr.nova.edu/ 

Hello Francesca.

You say: So my new question is the following: in qualitative research can we assess the trustworthiness of a given research in order to "validate" its own methodology?

My opinion:

Francesca, assessing the trustworthiness of a research is not a way to validate the methodology of that research, because these are 2 different things, and the former does not depend on the later.  So, the answer is no. 

That way, a research can be quite trustworthy, but its method may be wrong.  To put it with an analogy: your husband may be trustworthy, but he may behave in such a way that arouses your suspicions, or in a way that is wrong to show his feelings toward you.

On the other hand, if you want to know whether your method is THE better one, it is almost impossible, because this is a task for the scientific community, not for a single person. You can only propose your method, apply your method n times, and compare your method to many others, but no more.  The final decision is a matter of practical implications of the method, and it would also be necessary to have a golden standard, and in Qlt research it is quite hard.

I hope to have been useful, Francesca...

Best!

Thanks

I found the information helpful

The information shared is very useful. Thank you very much.

Please see the following link: https://conjointly.com/kb/qualitative-validity/