LESSON 26 - VALIDITY: METHODS OF DETERMINING VALIDITY / CREDIBILITY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

LESSON 26 - VALIDITY: METHODS OF DETERMINING VALIDITY / CREDIBILITY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

by Prof. Lydiah Wambugu

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Science — General & History GPSResearch methodsGPSEQualitative research methods
🎙 Prof. Lydiah Wambugu 👥 29K 📅 May 27, 2021 ⏱ 15 min 👁 6K 📄 tutorial 🧭 2026-08-17
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

credibilityvalidityqualitative researchtrustworthinessmember checking

Summary

This lesson, part of a research methods course, addresses the concept of validity in qualitative research, often termed credibility or trustworthiness. The instructor begins by contrasting quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, noting that positivists often question the trustworthiness of qualitative findings because the researcher is the primary instrument. To address this, qualitative researchers use specific strategies to establish credibility. The video outlines eight methods: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, member checking, external audits, and thick description. Each method is briefly explained, emphasizing how they enhance the accuracy and believability of qualitative findings. The lecture aims to equip students with practical tools to strengthen the credibility of their own qualitative studies. The presentation is straightforward but lacks detailed examples or critical evaluation of each method’s limitations.

130 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video provides a clear enumeration of eight credibility methods, which is valuable for students seeking a foundational understanding. However, the argumentation is largely descriptive rather than critical; it does not delve into the nuances or potential pitfalls of each method. The instructor asserts the importance of these methods but does not support claims with empirical evidence or scholarly references. The value lies in its pedagogical structure, but the lack of depth limits its usefulness for advanced researchers.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The video does not cite specific academic sources, relying instead on general knowledge in the field. The description includes links to the instructor’s course and social media, but no direct references to literature. The title accurately reflects the content, and the lecture is consistent with standard qualitative research methodology. However, the absence of citations reduces its scientific rigor. The video is a tutorial, so it is appropriate for educational purposes, but it does not contribute new knowledge.

170 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which focuses on methods for determining validity/credibility in qualitative research.

Quality & Reliability

6/10

The video provides a structured overview of eight methods for establishing credibility in qualitative research, but the audio quality is poor and the content is presented in a lecture format without in-depth critical analysis or references to specific studies.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research — Supports the methods discussed in the video.

Contribution & Novelties

The video offers a concise summary of eight credibility methods, which is useful for students. However, it does not provide novel insights or critical analysis. For further exploration, consider the following:

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Lincoln and Guba’s Trustworthiness Criteria — Foundational framework for credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
  • Triangulation in Research — Overview of triangulation types and applications.
  • Member Checking — Explanation of member checking as a validation technique.

71 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows moderate scores across all dimensions, indicating a balanced but not exceptional video. The highest score is in information quantity, while technical level is slightly lower, reflecting the introductory nature of the content.

Reliability 6/10