The key source for almost all of the concepts that you are mentioning is Lincoln & Guba's 1985 book, Naturalistic Inquiry.

You can find a relatively extensive discussion of similar issues at:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_help_with_validity_and_reliability

David’s answer is along the same lines as I was going to suggest - the parallel, constructivist criteria to the positivist assumption used in quantitative research, for judging the rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research.  I have voted up his response. As well as looking at the Lincoln and Guba publication suggested by David, you might also want to look at Guba and Lincoln’s 1989 publication, and perhaps the discussion by Leininger (1994).

Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1989.

Leininger MM. Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In: Morse JM, editor. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. 1st ed. London: Sage; 1994: 95-115.

The link suggested by David is well worth looking at.

There is no simple answer as it depends on what philosophy you are using for example Action Research, Case study, Action Inquiry, Grounded theory to name a few . Triangulation and mixed methods play a large role. If you are asking question then Face validity - are the questions asking what they are suppose to ask. In qualitative research you tend to end up with descriptive statistics and the cause can never be known.  Reliability can come from your a triangulation process. Also credibility. You need to explain and defend your methodology.

These basic papers might be useful - will I am looking a Organisational Development the principles are the same for most social, cultural and behaviour research. Hope useful.

Checkland, P and S. Holwell (1998). Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol.11, N0. 1, pp. 9-21.

Clegg, R S and C. Hardy (1999). Studying Organisation, Theory & Methods Ch 10 Action Research for the Study of Organisation Eden, C and Huxham C, Sage Publications London.

Darwin, J. (2004). Linking Theory and Practice in Management Research – Scientific Research Programmes and Alethic Pluralism – International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy.

Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guide. Open University Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia. USA.

Easterby-Smith, M and R. Thorpe and A. Lowe (2002). Management Research: An introduction, Sage Publication Ltd, London.

Eden, C and C..Huxham (1999). Action research for the Study of Organisations in Studying Organisation - Theory and Method Clegg, S R and Hardy, C (Ed) Sage Publications, London.

Hussey, J and R. Hussey (1997). Business Research, Palgrave (Macmillian Macmillan Press) London.

James, P. (1999). Rewriting Narratives of Self: reflections from an action research study. Educational Action Research, Volume 7, No. 1.

Johnson, P. and Clark, M. (editors) (2006) Business and Management Research Methods, Volume 1. Recent Methodological Debates and Disputes in Business Management Research. Sage Publications, London. UK.

Johnson P and J. Duberley (2000). Understanding Management Research, Sage Publications, London.

Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, Vol23 iss 6, pp. 499-513.

Tranfield, D and K. Starkey (1998). “The nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: towards policy”, British Journal of Management, Vol 9 iss 4, pp.341-353.

Dear Dodik,

I've already answered this question one of my friends had, But I will copy paste the same answer to you, I hope it answer you question.

For qualitative reseach there are some certain critera to be used to increase the rigor and trustworthiness of the research. In qualitative research, I've read my articles, some of them indicate to using same criterias used for quantitative to be used for qualitative too, but some others disagree with the idea. but eventually I personally came to the consesus that, Qualitative has alternative terms for Reliability and Validity in which they are Rigor and Trustwothiness. for further information I recommend you to refer to:

1- Guba, E. G., 1981. Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic inquiries. Springer, 29(2), pp.75-91

2- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradaigms in qualitative research. In N.K Denizin & Y.

3- S. Lincoln, Handbook of qualiative research (pp.105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

the criterias I used to increase my research Reliability and Validity of my MA was the following:

1- Respondent Validation or Member Checking

2- Peer viewing Debriefing,

3- Validation of the Interview

4- Thick Descriptions

5- Audit trail

If you would like to know the process of each of those above please refer to:

Bowen, G. A., 2005. Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: lessons learned.

Eventually, Documenting all the process is also increaseing the trustworthiness and rigour of the research.

I hope that helps.

Best Regards.

The issue comes from Yin vs Stake, Yin used reliability and validity while Stake has different views on it. 

Thanks for the enlightenment. 

While these measures are generally accepted within the quantitative domain as criteria to judge the quality of research studies, qualitative researchers have questioned the suitability of these measures to be used within the qualitative domain . These researchers argue that since the type and the goals of both inquiries are different, then different measures should be used. However they acknowledge the necessity of using alternative rigour measures, and reported that the qualitative domain has been always undermined due to the absence of such mechanisms.

The terms credibility, transferability, and dependability were all originally proposed by Lincoln & Guba as alternatives to the their quantitative equivalents. So, it appears that Yin prefers to use the terms that started in quantitative research. while Stake is borrowing from the "translations" of those criteria into what Lincoln & Guba called Naturalistic Inquiry.

The basic issue is that some people believe that qualitative research should follow the same standards established long ago for quantitative research, while other believe that qualitative research should have its own unique standards. I think that the criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba stand halfway between these two positions, because they translate the original concerns of the quantitative criteria into standards that are better suited to qualitative research.

Thanks, 

So there is difference between Yin vs Lincoln Guba.

Yin has construct validity but Lincoln Guba do not have it.

But, Lincoln Guba require confirmability, but Yin does not state  confirmability/objectivity.

Is there any opinion on that issues?

Best regards

Construct validity refers to measurement -- literally, does an item measure what it was intended to measure. Lincoln and Guba probably omitted this because qualitative research seldom involves measurement of variables etc. Instead, their approach is related to a more experimental tradition by emphasizing the relationship between credibility with internal validity.

As for Lincoln and Guba's distinction between confirmability versus objectivity, objectivity is usually held as a higher-order goal in quantitative research, as opposed to the more mechanical aspects of reliability and validity. In particular, there are no technical  strategies for assessing objectivity in the way that there are reliability and validity.

Hi

Yes.

Please refer to,

Validity and Reliability of Students and Academic Staff’s Surveys to Improve Higher Education. Educational Alternatives, Journal of International Scientific Publications, Vol.14, pp. 242-263.

Regards,

Zuhair

validity is positivist and therefore not applicable in qualitative research. Qualitative researchers will prefer trustworthiness and rigor. The main reason in my view is in the ontological and epistemological variances. Whilst qualitative research assume a constructionist tradition, quantitative studies on the other hand believe in an absolute reality hence the possibility for validate it through experiments and measurements.