Mohsen - good responses here so far. A large problem, despite the sources already alluded to in the responses, so far, is that 'trustworthiness' is a more appropriate context to use in qualitative research than validity or reliability. For many qualitative researchers, the process of research rigour is linked to trustworthiness. Reliability and validity are more generally not held to be applicable to evaluate the findings of qualitative research. There has been considerable debate among qualitative researchers for decades, but a common and unified approach to describing the criteria for quality has not emerged clearly. It may be that there is no one method that can be identified, as the nature of qualitative research makes it difficult to reach agreement on criteria for assessing its quality.

Currently, there are six broad positions, which can be adopted with respect to the criteria for trustworthiness. A researcher will generally select from one or more of these positions in making the claim of trustworthiness.

Position 1 — using the criteria of quantitative research. This position argues that the process of quantitative reliability and validity remain appropriate concepts for ensuring rigour in qualitative research. It emphasises procedural precision and the use of ‘verification strategies integral and self-correcting during the conduct of inquiry itself’ (Morse et al. 2002 p 1). To a certain extent, meta-synthesis suits this position.

Position 2 — parallel methodological criteria. This position argues that qualitative research requires a different set of criteria for evaluating trustworthiness. Commonly cited are those of Guba and Lincoln (1989) who developed criteria which have a parallel relationship to those used in quantitative research. These are: ‘credibility with internal validity’, ‘auditability (dependability) with reliability’, ‘fittingness (transferability) with external validity’ and ‘confirmability with objectivity’.

Position 3 — multiple criteria. This position argues one list of criteria per qualitative research approach. For example, it has been proposed that the trustworthiness of an ethnographic report can be evaluated by the application of three criteria: veracity, objectivity and perspicacity (Stewart 1998). In grounded theory various forms have been suggested. McCann and Clark (2003) highlight the differences between the criteria proposed by Glaser of ‘fit’, ‘work’, ‘relevance’ and ‘modifiability’.

Position 4 — fresh and universal criteria. There are unique ‘general’ criteria for evaluating the rigour of qualitative research (all approaches). These criteria are yet to be identified and agreed on, although there have been numerous suggestions as to what the criteria should be. For instance, Morse and Richards (2002) suggest generic criteria grouped under the headings of: ‘asking the right question’, ‘ensuring an appropriate design’, ‘making trustworthy data’, ‘verification or completion’ and ‘solid theory- building’, if that is an aim. \

Position 5 — each study develops suitable, justifiable criteria. Growing in popularity is the flexibility for researchers to develop their own list of criteria for trustworthiness of a study. The choice is justified because of the qualitative research approach used and also on other grounds, such as philosophical, ethical and political reasons. 

Some common criteria selected are described below.

• An audit (decision trail), where care is taken to record the decisions made, particularly regarding design planning, sampling, data collection methods and analysis decisions. Sandelowski (1986) described this as a ‘decision trail’ which, it is claimed, provides evidence of the trustworthiness of the study for the reader. This represents a fundamental shift in responsibility for evaluating trustworthiness from the researcher to the reader (Rolfe 2006).

• Member (participant) checking, where researchers seek to claim trustworthiness by checking the descriptions, categories, concepts or theory produced with the participants for approval and acceptance. This can be problematical as participants rarely think abstractly and conceptually about aspects of their life reported to or observed by researchers.

• Peer analysis checking, where peers check either the acceptability of data analysis or of the research process overall. This is sought during the life of the study (e.g. using a supposedly independent peer-coder, or using a panel of ‘expert’ peers to evaluate emerging interpretations or application of the research approach).

Position 6 — no criteria is necessary. There is also a post-modern position that rejects the need for criteria to be selected or stated by a researcher in regard to trustworthiness of a qualitative research study or its product. Part of the rationale for this position is that the findings in qualitative research are ‘both a process and a product in which the researcher is deeply and unavoidably implicated’ (Sandelowski & Barroso 2002). The findings are therefore a subjective construction in which the knowledge, beliefs and activities of the researcher’s play a significant role. The findings are ‘unique social interactions’ and, for this reason, qualitative research can never be truly ‘generalisable’. The research and its reported product are accepted or rejected by the reader of the report or user of the product according to their own subjective criteria.

 Creswell & Miller (2000) suggest that the validity is affected by the researcher’s perception of validity in the study and his/her choice of paradigm assumption. As a result, many researchers have developed their own concepts of validity and have often generated or adopted what they consider to be more appropriate terms, such as, quality, rigor and trustworthiness (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mishler, 2000; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001).

According to Stenbacka, (2001) “the concept of reliability is even misleading in qualitative research. If a qualitative study is discussed with reliability as a

criterion, the consequence is rather that the study is no good” (p. 552).

On the other hand, Patton (2001) states that validity and reliability are two factors which any qualitative researcher should be concerned about while designing a study, analyzing results and judging the quality of the study

Here are 2 Refs:

Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative market research: An international journal, 3(3), 118-126.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22.

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf

This article of Shenton is a very good article to understand your concepts: 

http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Trustworthypaper.pdf

Mohsen - good responses here so far. A large problem, despite the sources already alluded to in the responses, so far, is that 'trustworthiness' is a more appropriate context to use in qualitative research than validity or reliability. For many qualitative researchers, the process of research rigour is linked to trustworthiness. Reliability and validity are more generally not held to be applicable to evaluate the findings of qualitative research. There has been considerable debate among qualitative researchers for decades, but a common and unified approach to describing the criteria for quality has not emerged clearly. It may be that there is no one method that can be identified, as the nature of qualitative research makes it difficult to reach agreement on criteria for assessing its quality.

Currently, there are six broad positions, which can be adopted with respect to the criteria for trustworthiness. A researcher will generally select from one or more of these positions in making the claim of trustworthiness.

Position 1 — using the criteria of quantitative research. This position argues that the process of quantitative reliability and validity remain appropriate concepts for ensuring rigour in qualitative research. It emphasises procedural precision and the use of ‘verification strategies integral and self-correcting during the conduct of inquiry itself’ (Morse et al. 2002 p 1). To a certain extent, meta-synthesis suits this position.

Position 2 — parallel methodological criteria. This position argues that qualitative research requires a different set of criteria for evaluating trustworthiness. Commonly cited are those of Guba and Lincoln (1989) who developed criteria which have a parallel relationship to those used in quantitative research. These are: ‘credibility with internal validity’, ‘auditability (dependability) with reliability’, ‘fittingness (transferability) with external validity’ and ‘confirmability with objectivity’.

Position 3 — multiple criteria. This position argues one list of criteria per qualitative research approach. For example, it has been proposed that the trustworthiness of an ethnographic report can be evaluated by the application of three criteria: veracity, objectivity and perspicacity (Stewart 1998). In grounded theory various forms have been suggested. McCann and Clark (2003) highlight the differences between the criteria proposed by Glaser of ‘fit’, ‘work’, ‘relevance’ and ‘modifiability’.

Position 4 — fresh and universal criteria. There are unique ‘general’ criteria for evaluating the rigour of qualitative research (all approaches). These criteria are yet to be identified and agreed on, although there have been numerous suggestions as to what the criteria should be. For instance, Morse and Richards (2002) suggest generic criteria grouped under the headings of: ‘asking the right question’, ‘ensuring an appropriate design’, ‘making trustworthy data’, ‘verification or completion’ and ‘solid theory- building’, if that is an aim. \

Position 5 — each study develops suitable, justifiable criteria. Growing in popularity is the flexibility for researchers to develop their own list of criteria for trustworthiness of a study. The choice is justified because of the qualitative research approach used and also on other grounds, such as philosophical, ethical and political reasons. 

Some common criteria selected are described below.

• An audit (decision trail), where care is taken to record the decisions made, particularly regarding design planning, sampling, data collection methods and analysis decisions. Sandelowski (1986) described this as a ‘decision trail’ which, it is claimed, provides evidence of the trustworthiness of the study for the reader. This represents a fundamental shift in responsibility for evaluating trustworthiness from the researcher to the reader (Rolfe 2006).

• Member (participant) checking, where researchers seek to claim trustworthiness by checking the descriptions, categories, concepts or theory produced with the participants for approval and acceptance. This can be problematical as participants rarely think abstractly and conceptually about aspects of their life reported to or observed by researchers.

• Peer analysis checking, where peers check either the acceptability of data analysis or of the research process overall. This is sought during the life of the study (e.g. using a supposedly independent peer-coder, or using a panel of ‘expert’ peers to evaluate emerging interpretations or application of the research approach).

Position 6 — no criteria is necessary. There is also a post-modern position that rejects the need for criteria to be selected or stated by a researcher in regard to trustworthiness of a qualitative research study or its product. Part of the rationale for this position is that the findings in qualitative research are ‘both a process and a product in which the researcher is deeply and unavoidably implicated’ (Sandelowski & Barroso 2002). The findings are therefore a subjective construction in which the knowledge, beliefs and activities of the researcher’s play a significant role. The findings are ‘unique social interactions’ and, for this reason, qualitative research can never be truly ‘generalisable’. The research and its reported product are accepted or rejected by the reader of the report or user of the product according to their own subjective criteria.

Reliability is the extent to which a measurement tool gives consistent results.

Extent to which a measurement tool measures "what it is supposed to measure" is  validity

Tools

• Reliability - Alpha reliability coefficient of correlation
• Validity - Factor Analysis, One way Anova, Multiple Regression Analysis

Attaching a Dataset - poster for reference

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-relationship-between-reliability-validity.html#transcript

Data AUTONOMOUS WORK TEAMS ON A HIGH PERFORMANCE MODE

Also, look at this: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/13522750310470055 (Riege, Andreas M.  (2003) "Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss: 2, pp.75-86)

My explanations on Validity and Reliability are absolutely right.  Please ask your doubts and I shall clarify it

Please refer Pp 662 (PDF page 5) in paragraph Methodology: validity and reliability, Validity is described as the ability of the instrument to measure what it is supposed to measure and reliability the instrument's ability to consistently and accurately measure the concept under study (Wood et al,2006) .

Wood MJ, Ross-Kerr JC, Brink PJ (2006) Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research: From Question to Proposal 6th edn . Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury

Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1 : quantitative research Michael Coughian et all, Pp 65-663, British Journal of Nursing. 2007. Vol 16, No 11

http://www.huttvalleydhb.org.nz/content/3b7c2840-ddb4-4892-9533-57f4ba9d3bc8.cmr

Hi Mose

I think that you should consider also the paradigms that you have choice for your research. You can have a good introduction in:

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London: Sage. 

Dear @Mohsen, there are some good articles available here at ResearchGate, as some threads about.

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

Article ESTABLISHING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY IN QUALITATIVE INQUIRY...

Article Qualitative Research: Part One Paradigmatic Grounds and Issu...

Article On reliability and validity in qualitative research

Krishnan Umachandran  Yes, your definitions are correct, for quantitative research.  The question asks about validity and reliability in qualitative research.

That is a correct interpretation Mary. Krishnan has indeed been mixing his paradigms - hence the down votes I would imagine. 

With 2 excellent answers by you, Dean and Behrouz Ahmadi-Nedushan, I think the question has been answered.

@ Dean

I have never mixed any paradigms.

I see this Q&A a cartel network to garner upvotes, which is of no use anyone. 

Thanks Mary-Helen for the vote of confidence.

Krishnan - this is nothing to do with garnishing upvotes. You have very clearly mixed your paradigms. Mohsen's original question relates purely to qualitative research. You obviously believe in conspiracy theories but, at the end of the day, this debate is 'black and white'. What is very much of use - is that people understand the 'basic' differences between quantitative and qualitative paradigms - you clearly do not!! If you are a 'real' professor - then that is very worrying. 

I have pasted below bits of your responses to the original'qualitative' question. Can you explain to me where any of your responses relate to qualitative research - and then I might be convinced that you are not mixing paradigms? 

By the way - there is a 'huge clue' in you using the British Journal of Nursing citation to illustrate - it is called 'Part 1: quantitative research!!

...........

Reliability is the extent to which a measurement tool gives consistent results.

Extent to which a measurement tool measures "what it is supposed to measure" is validity

Tools

Reliability - Alpha reliability coefficient of correlation

Validity - Factor Analysis, One way Anova, Multiple Regression Analysis

..........

Please refer Pp 662 (PDF page 5) in paragraph Methodology: validity and reliability, Validity is described as the ability of the instrument to measure what it is supposed to measure and reliability the instrument's ability to consistently and accurately measure the concept under study (Wood et al,2006) .

Wood MJ, Ross-Kerr JC, Brink PJ (2006) Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research: From Question to Proposal 6th edn . Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury

Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1 : quantitative research Michael Coughian et all, Pp 65-663, British Journal of Nursing. 2007. Vol 16, No 11

Krishnan, Dean, I honestly thought it was a simple mistake of misreading the question, hence my comment.  And it was not an issue of up or down votes, in my opinion.

Wow, I am loving the discussion. It's very enriching and all the answers that I need for Validity and Reliability are expounded clearly.

Many mahalos!

Depending on your research scope and data, there are various ways you can cross validate your data. In ensuring optimal acceptance value, one may likely want to fall back on using quantitative approach to validate qualitative data.

Agree, there are quantitative approaches to validating qualitative data. This will make your entire research more time consuming, however, it may be worth it at the end. The trustworthiness of the data and the analysis is what counts.