Establishing rigour in qualitative radiography research

Abstract 

The vast majority of radiography research is subject to critique and evaluation from peers in order to justify the method and the outcome of the study. Within the quantitative domain, which the majority of medical imaging publications tend to fall into, there are prescribed methods for establishing scientific rigour and quality in order to critique a study.

However, researchers within the qualitative paradigm, which is a developing area of radiography research, are often unclear about the most appropriate methods to measure the rigour (standards and quality) of a research study. This article considers the issues related to rigour, reliability and validity within qualitative research. The concepts of reliability and validity are briefly discussed within traditional positivism and then the attempts to use these terms as a measure of quality within qualitative research are explored.

Alternative methods for research rigour in interpretive research (meanings and emotions) are suggested in order to compliment the existing radiography framework that exists for qualitative studies. The authors propose the use of an established model that is adapted to reflect the iterative process of qualitative research. Although a mechanistic approach to establishing rigour is rejected by many qualitative researchers, it is argued that a guide for novice researchers within a developing research base such as radiography is appropriate in order to establish the credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative study.

Keywords: Qualitative research, Radiography framework, Rigour, Validity, Reliability, Trustworthiness