For my Master thesis, I am going to conduct a number of interviews with experts to assess my proposed tool. I have set up a decision support tool based on the literature and want to verify it for completeness, determine possible interrelationships between factors and ask a number of ranking questions.
My research is qualitative in nature, and the idea was to set up a semi-structured interview. A combination of open questions with a number of closed questions.
Which analysis technique can I best use for this? Is there a certain technique or coding scheme best suited to verify a tool?
Thank you!
Tim
I do not know of any system for evaluating a qualitative interview, other than the rather rare option of asking for expert feedback.
I also have doubts about why you would want to conduct such an "assessment." If you derived your questions for the literature, why do you need further input to "determine inter-relationships"? And what kind of "ranking" do you have in mind? Both of these goals sound rather qualitative to me.
As for using a combination of open and closed ended questions, the N for qualitative interviews is generally too small to support the statistical analysis of quantitative data.
Thomas Owren Thank you, I have edited my comment to say that goals of this assessment sound rather quantitative.
You could pilot test your interview questions through a recorded mock interview to assess their effectiveness and the ensued responses (Roberts, 2020). Doing so could help you do modifications on the questions if required before actual implementation. You might go through the following references for relevant insights.
Bochner, A. P. (2018). Unfurling rigor: On continuity and change in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(6), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417727766
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
Roberts, R. (2020). Qualitative interview questions: Guidance for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4640
Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2017). Raising the curtain: The importance of transparency in qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000062
Good luck,
David, in his original post, alluded to the notion of 'experts'. This leads us nicely into 'mixed methods' (depending on currents debates around mixed methods) into the methodologies that use qualitative process to set the context for 'expert' consensus/ranking i.e. Delphi Technique - and Q-Sort/Q-Ranking. Have you considered these approaches Tim?
For my Doctoral thesis, I am framing a quantitative questionnaire tool to collect healthcare seeking behavior of vulnerable tribal peoples. The content of questionnaire were synthesized from literature review and a qualitative interview like IDI and FGD will be done to explore more possible categories of specific questions.
I need to validate my tool.
So, what validity and reliability test should be good enough to call my tool a validated one?
Will Face and content validity and internal consistency reliability test suffice my tool validation?
Thank you!
Jyoti
The use of qualitative data to create a set of measures is known in mixed methods research as a sequential exploratory design (qual --> QUANT).
With regard to reliability and validity, the draft of the quantitative instrument should be assessed in the traditional fashion, because there is nothing about a preliminary qualitative study that makes the resulting questions "special."
- Badges
- Science topic