4.4.3 (HL)—Research credibility

Credibility is the trustworthiness and believability of a qualitative account; transferability is how far its detailed findings can inform another population or context. Neither means statistical proof that every case is identical.

A reader needs enough detail about sampling, procedure, recording and analysis to judge whether the interpretation fits the data. Triangulation can compare datasets, methods or researchers; reflexivity makes the researcher’s influence and limitations visible.

An interview study of one community may transfer to another setting when the experience and context are richly described and the reader can judge the fit. A second researcher checking the coding and comparing interview themes with another data source can strengthen credibility.

Small samples do not automatically make qualitative work worthless, and a familiar topic is not automatically transferable. Distinguish credibility from transferability, state what is described, and avoid generalising beyond the evidence.

A useful improvement targets a named threat: random or stratified sampling can address a biased sampling frame; standardised procedures or observer training can improve reliability; validated or culturally equivalent measures can improve construct validity; blinding can reduce expectancy bias; triangulation, member reflection and an audit trail can strengthen qualitative credibility; replication and a new context can test generalization or transferability. Larger samples alone do not repair confounding or invalid measurement.