Lincoln and Guba scientific quality assessment criteria usage in determining of qualitative research validity and reliability

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Curriculum, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Architecture, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: With social studies expansion based on qualitative approach, assessing the scientific quality of these studies has become one of the central issues in methodology. Qualitative studies, relying on direct interaction with participants, the presence of researcher in the field of study, and a deep focus on exploring meanings and lived experiences, seek to understand the hidden layers of social phenomena. However, the established evaluation criteria of quantitative methodology have created impression that qualitative studies do not have reliable criteria. In response to these criticisms, qualitative methodologists have presented alternative frameworks and criteria for measuring the quality of qualitative data and results; which, despite the exploratory capacities of this approach, ensure the issue of data validity and reliability. As such, Lincoln and Guba four criteria - including credibility, transferability, reliability, and confirmability - have gained prominent place in methodological literature as one of most important quality assessment models in qualitative research.

Methodology: This research aims to investigate methods for determining validity and reliability in qualitative studies based on Lincoln and Guba perspective, and in order to increase the robustness of the data, in a descriptive study, it attempts to review the existing knowledge in the field of research methodology based on Lincoln and Guba four qualitative criteria and strategies for achieving each of these criteria.

Findings: The findings show that paying attention to the Lincoln and Guba criteria has been able to increase the double confidence in research and improve its scientific level. Now, since ensuring credibility and trust in qualitative research is of great importance to researchers, the Lincoln and Guba framework has been able to increase the accuracy and validity of findings and their adaptation to the perspectives and experiences of participants by providing a coherent set of criteria and effective use of strategies. In this sense, credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research act as a platform for creating meaningful insights and advancing knowledge, and by adhering to the Lincoln and Guba framework, researchers can promote and strengthen credibility by creating truth, transferability by generalizability in the field, trustworthiness by ensuring stability and sustainability, and confirmability by combating bias and subjectivity.

Discussion and Conclusion: Achieving a coherent and acceptable model for assessing the quality of research requires further studies and continuous dialogue between different methodological approaches. For this purpose, Lincoln and Guba (1985) have introduced criteria to achieve a clear picture of the position of qualitative research in the social sciences, which have been effective in the credibility, transferability, confirmability, and reliability of qualitative research based on the scientific assessment of the validity and reliability of research data. However, to adapt the four quality criteria of Lincoln and Guba, one can:

1. To increase credibility, long-term adaptation methods, peer review, member review, documentation, and triangulation were used. The use of these methods helps to gain a deep understanding of the phenomena and a detailed understanding of the experiences of the participants, and increases the validity of the research.

2. To increase transferability, rich description methods, in-depth description of the context, and diverse sampling were used. The use of these methods describes all relevant aspects (such as economic, social, and technological conditions) and generalizes the findings to all aspects of the research context.

3. To increase reliability, portfolio, reflection, and follow-up evaluation methods are used. The use of these methods increases the transparency of the research process and helps other researchers in reproducing the research.

4. To increase confirmability, peer review and peer review methods can be used. Using these methods increases confidence in the findings and confirms that the findings reflect the evidence and not the researcher's biases.

Keywords

References

Adler, R. H. (2022). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Human Lactation, 38(4), 598-602.
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 22(4), 431-447.
Alexander, A. P. (2019). Lincoln and Guba’s quality criteria for trustworthiness. IDC International Journal, 6(4), 1-6.
Arminio, J. L., & F. H. Hultgren (2002). Breaking Out from the Shadow: The Question of Criteria in Qualitative Research. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 446–456.
Arslan, E. (2025). Validity and reliability in qualitative research, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 69(1), 383-394.
Avizienis, A., Laprie, J. C., Randell, B., & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE transactions on dependable and secure computing, 1(1), 11-33.
Belcher, J. (1991), Understanding the Process of Social Drift among the Homeless: A Qualitative Analysis, In E. Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Social Work. Columbia University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study, University of Nebraska Pub.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Denzin, N. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, (Third Eds.) Englewood Cliffs. Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. K. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research (Vol. 1). Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
Enworo, O. C. (2023). Application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria to assess trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. Qualitative research journal, 23(4), 372-384.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility (pp. 5-27). MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.
Forero A, R., Triana Perdomo, L. A., & Jiménez-Cuadros, L. K. (2025). Integrating Learning and Knowledge Technologies in Hybrid Classical Language Education: A Case Study from the University of La Sabana, Sabana University Anstitue & Press (SUAP).
Gall, M. D.; Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (2007). Educational research: an introduction, (translated by A. Nasr, et al), The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Islamic Sciences and the Humanities (SAMT). [In Persian]
Glaser, B. G. (2007). Naturalist inquiry and grounded theory. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement, 114-132.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers an Introduction. Longman.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
Halliday, M.; Alexander K.; Matthiessen, C. M.; Halliday, M. & Matthiessen, C., (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
Haq, Z. U., Rasheed, R., Rashid, A., & Akhter, S. (2023). Criteria for assessing and ensuring the trustworthiness in qualitative research. International Journal of Business Reflections, 4(2).
Johnson, R. B., & L. B. Christensen (2008), Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, (3rd Ed.). Sage.
Kaufmann, A. (2025).  Criteria of Trustworthiness: An introduction to trustworthiness according to Guba and Lincoln, Nürnberger: QDAcity. https://qdacity.com/trustworthiness/
Kimchi J, B. Polivka, & J. S. Stevenson (1991). Triangulation: Operational Definitions. Nursing Research, 40, 364-366.
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124.
Kvale, S., & Svend B. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. (2th Eds.). Sage Publications.
Lafaille, R. & Wildeboer, H. (1995). Validity and reliability of observation and data collection in biographical research. Internat. Inst. for Advanced Health Studies.
Langtree, T., Birks, M., & Biedermann, N. (2019). Separating" fact" from fiction: Strategies to improve rigour in historical research. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 17). DEU.
Lather, P. (1993), 'Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism” In, The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673-693.
Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324-327.
Lincoln, Y. S. & E. G. Guba, (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Sage.
Long, T., & Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical effectiveness in nursing, 4(1), 30-37.
Mason, Jennifer (2017). Qualitative researching, (translated by M Heidarpour Kelidsar & M. Heidarpour Kelidsar), Shahrab. [In Persian]
Maxwell, J. A. (1997). Designing a Qualitative Study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 69–100). Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approache, (2th Eds), Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2020). The value of qualitative inquiry for public policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 177-186.
McLeod, S. (2024). Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research, UKRI Publication.
Meloy, J, M. (1994), Writing the Qualitative Dissertation: Understanding by Doing. Lawerence Erlbaum.
Mills, M. B. & Huberman M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications Ltd.
Morse, J. M. (2016). Essentials of qualitatively-driven mixed-method designs. Routledge.
Neuman, L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. (3th Eds). Allyn and Bacon.
Neuman, L. (2007), Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. (2th Eds). Allyn & Bacon.
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-based nursing, 18(2), 34-35.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publication.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
Pfeifer, M. A., & Dolan, E. L. (2023). Venturing into Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide to Getting Started. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 7 (1), 10–20.
Rambaree, K. (2007). Bringing rigour in qualitative social research: The use of a CAQDAS. University of Mauritius Research Journal, 13, 1-16.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Applied research for sustainable change: A guide for education leaders (Vol. 237). Harvard Education Press.
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2005), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers.Sage Publications Ltd.
Roller, M., & Roller, M. (2020). Critical Thinking in Qualitative Research Design, Sage.
Sampoornam, W. (2018). Statistical methods adopted in psychometric property of instruments in nursing research. International Journal of Nursing Education and Research, 6(2), 151-152.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
Sharma, U., Singh, A., & Yadav, A. (2023). Role of Higher Education Among Management Young Professionals in India: An Analytical Study on Employability Skills and Development. Delhi Business Review, 24(1), 75-82.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. Sage  Publication.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M (2014). Basics of qualitative research, (translated by B. Mohammadi), IHCS Pub. [In Persian]
Stalmeijer, R. E., Brown, M. E., & O'Brien, B. C. (2024). How to discuss transferability of qualitative research in health professions education. The clinical teacher, 21(6), e13762.
Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2021). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A., & C. Teddlie (1998), Mixed Methodology: Combining the Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage.
Teddlie, C. & A. Tashakkori (2009), Foundations of Mixed Method Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage Publications.
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of advanced nursing, 48(4), 388-396.
Tracy, S. J. (2024). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Trochim, William M. K., (2025). Research Methods Knowledge Base: Qualitative Validity, Conjointly, Sydney: Pty Ltd. https://conjointly.com/kb/qualitative-validity/ 
Yin, Robert K. (2021). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. Guilford Press.
Applied Scientometric Studies
Volume 2, Issue 3 - Serial Number 7
November 2025
Pages 25-45

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics