Credibility: This is the qualitative equivalent of internal validity. It asks whether the researcher's interpretations align with the actual experiences of the participants, often verified through member checking.
Transferability: Parallel to external validity, this focuses on providing thick description of the context. This allows other researchers to determine if the findings can be 'transferred' to their own specific settings, rather than making broad statistical claims.
Dependability: This replaces the concept of reliability. It involves documenting the research process in detail so that others can follow the 'audit trail' and see how conclusions were reached, even if the study cannot be perfectly replicated.
Confirmability: This addresses objectivity by ensuring that the findings are clearly derived from the data and not the researcher's personal biases or motivations. It is often supported by a reflexivity journal.
Triangulation: This involves using multiple data sources, methods, or researchers to study the same phenomenon. If different approaches yield similar results, the validity of the findings is significantly strengthened.
Member Checking: In qualitative studies, researchers return to the participants to share their preliminary findings. This ensures that the researcher's interpretations accurately reflect the participants' intended meanings.
Prolonged Engagement: Spending an extended period in the field allows qualitative researchers to build trust and identify patterns that might be missed during a brief encounter, reducing the risk of superficial conclusions.
Standardization and Blinding: In quantitative research, using standardized protocols and 'blinding' (where participants or researchers do not know which group is receiving a treatment) helps eliminate human bias and expectancy effects.
| Feature | Quantitative Validity | Qualitative Validity |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Generalizability and Causality | Depth of Understanding and Meaning |
| Key Metric | Statistical Significance () | Credibility and Authenticity |
| Researcher Role | Detached Observer | Active Participant/Instrument |
| Verification | Replication and Control | Triangulation and Member Checking |
| Context | Controlled/Standardized | Naturalistic/Context-Bound |
Identify the Paradigm First: Before evaluating validity, determine if the study is quantitative or qualitative. Use terms like 'generalizability' for quantitative and 'transferability' for qualitative to demonstrate conceptual precision.
Check for Confounding Variables: In quantitative scenarios, always ask: 'Is there another factor that could explain this result?' If yes, the internal validity is compromised.
Look for Triangulation: If an exam question describes a researcher using interviews, observations, and surveys together, they are likely attempting to increase validity through triangulation.
Differentiate Reliability and Validity: Remember that a measure can be reliable (consistent) without being valid (accurate). For example, a scale that is always 5 pounds off is reliable but invalid.
