Cargando…

Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research

BACKGROUND: This paper assesses interviewee transcript review (ITR) as a technique for improving the rigour of interview-based, qualitative research. ITR is a process whereby interviewees are provided with verbatim transcripts of their interviews for the purposes of verifying accuracy, correcting er...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hagens, Victoria, Dobrow, Mark J, Chafe, Roger
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713273/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-47
_version_ 1782169571215540224
author Hagens, Victoria
Dobrow, Mark J
Chafe, Roger
author_facet Hagens, Victoria
Dobrow, Mark J
Chafe, Roger
author_sort Hagens, Victoria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This paper assesses interviewee transcript review (ITR) as a technique for improving the rigour of interview-based, qualitative research. ITR is a process whereby interviewees are provided with verbatim transcripts of their interviews for the purposes of verifying accuracy, correcting errors or inaccuracies and providing clarifications. ITR, in various forms, is widely used among qualitative researchers, however there is limited methodological guidance on how it should be employed and little is known about its actual impact on the transcript, the data, the interviewee or the researcher. METHODS: ITR was incorporated into a qualitative research study in which 51 key informant interviews were conducted with a range of senior stakeholders within the Canadian health care system. The changes made by interviewees to their transcripts were systematically tracked and categorized using a set of mutually exclusive categories. RESULTS: The study found that ITR added little to the accuracy of the transcript and may create complications if the goal of the researcher is to produce a transcript which reflects precisely what was said at the time of the interview. The advantages of ITR are that it allows interviewees the opportunity to edit or clarify information provided in the original interview, with many interviewees providing corrections, clarifications, and in some cases, adding new material to their transcripts. There are also potential disadvantages, such as a bias created by inconsistent data sources or the loss of data when an interviewee chooses to remove valuable material. The impact of ITR on the interviewee may be both positive and negative, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the study. The impact of ITR on the researcher was minimal in this study, but is again subject to specific circumstances of the research context. CONCLUSION: While ITR is employed by many researchers across numerous fields, the advantages of its use may be relatively small in terms of verifying the accuracy of qualitative interview transcripts. Researchers are advised to carefully consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of ITR outlined in this paper before deciding to incorporate the practice within their qualitative study designs.
format Text
id pubmed-2713273
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27132732009-07-21 Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research Hagens, Victoria Dobrow, Mark J Chafe, Roger BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: This paper assesses interviewee transcript review (ITR) as a technique for improving the rigour of interview-based, qualitative research. ITR is a process whereby interviewees are provided with verbatim transcripts of their interviews for the purposes of verifying accuracy, correcting errors or inaccuracies and providing clarifications. ITR, in various forms, is widely used among qualitative researchers, however there is limited methodological guidance on how it should be employed and little is known about its actual impact on the transcript, the data, the interviewee or the researcher. METHODS: ITR was incorporated into a qualitative research study in which 51 key informant interviews were conducted with a range of senior stakeholders within the Canadian health care system. The changes made by interviewees to their transcripts were systematically tracked and categorized using a set of mutually exclusive categories. RESULTS: The study found that ITR added little to the accuracy of the transcript and may create complications if the goal of the researcher is to produce a transcript which reflects precisely what was said at the time of the interview. The advantages of ITR are that it allows interviewees the opportunity to edit or clarify information provided in the original interview, with many interviewees providing corrections, clarifications, and in some cases, adding new material to their transcripts. There are also potential disadvantages, such as a bias created by inconsistent data sources or the loss of data when an interviewee chooses to remove valuable material. The impact of ITR on the interviewee may be both positive and negative, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the study. The impact of ITR on the researcher was minimal in this study, but is again subject to specific circumstances of the research context. CONCLUSION: While ITR is employed by many researchers across numerous fields, the advantages of its use may be relatively small in terms of verifying the accuracy of qualitative interview transcripts. Researchers are advised to carefully consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of ITR outlined in this paper before deciding to incorporate the practice within their qualitative study designs. BioMed Central 2009-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC2713273/ /pubmed/19580666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-47 Text en Copyright ©2009 Hagens et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hagens, Victoria
Dobrow, Mark J
Chafe, Roger
Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
title Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
title_full Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
title_fullStr Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
title_full_unstemmed Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
title_short Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
title_sort interviewee transcript review: assessing the impact on qualitative research
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713273/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-47
work_keys_str_mv AT hagensvictoria intervieweetranscriptreviewassessingtheimpactonqualitativeresearch
AT dobrowmarkj intervieweetranscriptreviewassessingtheimpactonqualitativeresearch
AT chaferoger intervieweetranscriptreviewassessingtheimpactonqualitativeresearch