Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research¶
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1-13.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- Calibration Workshop
- By reconciling on real cases it raises inter-rater agreement in a way no written definition alone achieves.
This sourceIndependent coding followed by systematic reconciliation can expose ambiguous codes and improve agreement.
- By reconciling on real cases it raises inter-rater agreement in a way no written definition alone achieves.
- Dual Codebook Audit
- Its failure mode is a subtle inversion: an audit modeled on standard qualitative quality control reaches for inter-coder reliability statistics, which reward agreement.
This sourceDefines intercoder reliability as correspondence among coders and reviews statistics designed to measure their agreement.
- Its failure mode is a subtle inversion: an audit modeled on standard qualitative quality control reaches for inter-coder reliability statistics, which reward agreement.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:3fbe0d060ca8 · see in the full table