I am currently doing a quasi-experimental research. I have decided to use both qualitative and quantitive methods in collecting the data. For the qualitative data, I have an observation card and semi-structured interview. What are the techniques to validate these instruments (qualitative). Thanks in advance.
A couple of thoughts:
- Triangulation with empirical data. If not 100% then at least partially.
- Triangulation with other qualitative findings, either from your own research or that of others.
- Internal consistency. It is usually possible to design questionnaires such that they have inbuilt consistency checks.
Hope that sparks some ideas.
The term "validity" is a often not preferred in qualitative research, because it typically has a limited meaning that is derived from qualitative research. Instead, the criteria are usually associated with the terms "trustworthiness" and "credibility." Note, however, that these terms are usually associated with assessing the results, not the instruments.
So, instead of thinking of the validity of instruments, you should think of the effectiveness of interview guide and observation techniques. Getting some expert (or key informant) comments would help.
An expert panel or field test to test your questions would be ideal. This should ensure reliability of your questions.
"Validity" is more of a concern of quantitative research, which seeks a broad range of participants in sampling and answers a general question. Hence, your quantitative research should be "valid" in ways that it can be replicated. In contrast, qualitative research focuses on trustworthiness and credibility. It seeks a deep understanding of an issue, a cultural group, a unique or general cases, or life stories of the participants of the foci of the research questions. :)
As David L Morgan has indicated, you wouldn’t be ”validating” the instrument as in quantitative research; however, as mentioned by some others, there may be methods you can use to develop a more effective semi-structured questionnaire (depending on your research focus):
—an expert panel;
—peer debriefing (have your colleagues or supervisor review it for clarity, loaded questions, etc.);
—engage a few individuals from the target population in reviewing it and assessing its clarity, comprehensibility, relevance (for ex., adult experts may have limitations in assessing a questionnaire about adolescent social media use);
—and various measures to exercise reflexivity—that is, to what extent are your own biases and assumptions perhaps implicit in the questions (see Tufford, L. & Newman, P.A. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research).
Finally, many approaches to qualitative research benefit from an iterative process whereby earlier interviews suggest ways to iteratively develop the semi-structured interview guide to better explore in depth participants’ perspectives, etc. (also sometimes called progressive focusing). In particular this last method reveals the limits of applying a post-positivistic approach to ”validity” in qualitative methodologies.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Instrumentation Engineering
- Instruments