↓ Skip to main content

Member Checking

Overview of attention for article published in Qualitative Health Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
221 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
689 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Member Checking
Published in
Qualitative Health Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/1049732316654870
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Birt, Suzanne Scott, Debbie Cavers, Christine Campbell, Fiona Walter

Abstract

The trustworthiness of results is the bedrock of high quality qualitative research. Member checking, also known as participant or respondent validation, is a technique for exploring the credibility of results. Data or results are returned to participants to check for accuracy and resonance with their experiences. Member checking is often mentioned as one in a list of validation techniques. This simplistic reporting might not acknowledge the value of using the method, nor its juxtaposition with the interpretative stance of qualitative research. In this commentary, we critique how member checking has been used in published research, before describing and evaluating an innovative in-depth member checking technique, Synthesized Member Checking. The method was used in a study with patients diagnosed with melanoma. Synthesized Member Checking addresses the co-constructed nature of knowledge by providing participants with the opportunity to engage with, and add to, interview and interpreted data, several months after their semi-structured interview.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 689 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 682 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 180 26%
Student > Master 137 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 97 14%
Student > Bachelor 67 10%
Researcher 50 7%
Other 96 14%
Unknown 62 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 157 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 111 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 74 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 68 10%
Psychology 59 9%
Other 135 20%
Unknown 85 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,016,359
of 14,150,424 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#216
of 1,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,816
of 263,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,150,424 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.