Table 2. Methodological rigour.
| CRITERIA | DESCRIPTION | TECHNIQUE USED | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility | Confidence in the ’truth’ of the findings. | Research team triangulation (Denzin, 1978, Atkinson & Delamont, 2008) |
|
| Member checking (Davis & Lachlan, 2017) | |||
| Transferability | Showing that the findings have applicablity in other contexts. (Rose & Jonhson, 2020) |
Inspection of transcripts | |
| Following a previously established correct protocol | |||
| Review the coding of specific parts | |||
| Communication between team members | |||
| Presentation of well-defined and described topics | |||
| Dependability | Confidence in the ’truth’ of the findings. (Saldaña, 2013, Palacios-Ceña, 2014) |
Avoiding superficial coding | |
| Avoiding the researcher’s interpretations | |||
| Adding negative cases (Maxwell, 2013) | |||
| External auditor (Rose & Jonhson, 2020) | |||
| Confirmability | A degree of neutraility or the extent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest. (Klem et al, 2021) |
Researcher herself/himself | Bracketing (Bergen, 2013) |
| Participants | Avoid social desirability bias (Bergen & Labonté 2020) | ||
| Member checking (Davis & Lachlan, 2017) | |||
| Research Team | Triangulation and Crystallization (Richardson, 1997) |
||
| Peer debriefing | |||
| Catalytic validity | |||