Menú
Use when establishing or evaluating the trustworthiness and rigor of qualitative research using Lincoln & Guba's criteria and related frameworks.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Use when writing academic prose for qualitative research — findings, methods, discussion sections with appropriate voice and conventions.
Use when conducting participatory action research (PAR) involving collaborative inquiry, cycles of action and reflection.
Use when formatting academic work in APA 7th edition style — citations, references, headings, tables, and manuscript structure.
Use when designing or conducting case study research following Yin's multiple case study methodology or Stake's approach.
Use when developing and densifying categories with properties, dimensions, conditions, and consequences.
Use when formatting academic work in Chicago/Turabian style — notes-bibliography or author-date systems.
| name | qualitative-rigor |
| description | Use when establishing or evaluating the trustworthiness and rigor of qualitative research using Lincoln & Guba's criteria and related frameworks. |
“Rigor” in qualitative research is less about replication in a narrow sense and more about demonstrating that findings are credible, contextually meaningful, carefully documented, and reflexively produced. Lincoln and Guba’s trustworthiness framework remains widely used; newer approaches add critical, participatory, and justice-oriented quality criteria.
Credibility
Transferability
Dependability
Confirmability
Member checking can support credibility but is debated in grounded theory. Document what type you used and why. See the member-checking skill for GT-specific cautions.
Positivist “validity/reliability” language can mis-fit constructivist paradigms. If your committee demands those terms, map them explicitly (e.g., credibility ≈ internal validity in a loose translation) and defend paradigm-appropriate criteria.
Constructivist work may emphasize reflexivity, co-construction, and situated knowledge. Critical and participatory approaches may add actionability, distributive justice, and community benefit. Pragmatist mixed-methods studies may foreground usefulness alongside trustworthiness.
In methods/findings:
Glaserian rigor emphasizes fit, work, relevance, modifiability of theory relative to data. Connect trustworthiness techniques to those criteria when writing GT studies so reviewers see coherence across frameworks.
