↓ 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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
344 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1017 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 16 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 1,017 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 1010 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 232 23%
Student > Master 198 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 142 14%
Student > Bachelor 106 10%
Researcher 72 7%
Other 137 13%
Unknown 130 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 215 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 153 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 105 10%
Psychology 93 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 92 9%
Other 194 19%
Unknown 165 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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
#1,943,610
of 15,375,887 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#214
of 1,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,451
of 265,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,375,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 265,271 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 83% 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.