↓ 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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
208 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
605 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 14 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 605 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%
Ireland 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 598 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 163 27%
Student > Master 123 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 83 14%
Student > Bachelor 59 10%
Unspecified 59 10%
Other 118 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 141 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 95 16%
Unspecified 82 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 65 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 62 10%
Other 160 26%

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 14 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,981,500
of 13,770,158 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#214
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,441
of 262,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,770,158 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 1,320 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 83% 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 262,516 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 81% 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.