Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ)¶
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Confirmability
- At the thesis examination, an examiner uses exactly these artifacts to trace reported themes back to source excerpts, and health-sciences journals increasingly ask qualitative submissions to follow reporting standards such as COREQ, which require an explicit account of how themes were derived from the data and the supporting quotations that ground them
This sourceCOREQ is the consolidated health-sciences reporting checklist, built out of major medical journals' own author and reviewer guidelines, whose recurring items include an explicit description of how themes were derived and the quotations supporting them — it carries the reporting-standard half of this sentence, not the thesis-examination illustration the sentence opens with.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- At the thesis examination, an examiner uses exactly these artifacts to trace reported themes back to source excerpts, and health-sciences journals increasingly ask qualitative submissions to follow reporting standards such as COREQ, which require an explicit account of how themes were derived from the data and the supporting quotations that ground them
- Theme Reification
- To guard against this, the field institutionalizes provenance discipline: audit trails documenting how codes became themes, member checking (returning findings to participants to test the grouping), reflexive memos recording the analyst's role, and reporting standards such as COREQ (Tong et al., 2007), which require authors to make the analytic construction visible rather than presenting themes as facts that surfaced on their own
This sourceCOREQ, the 32-item checklist for reporting qualitative interview and focus-group studies, which asks authors to describe the derivation of themes.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.”
- To guard against this, the field institutionalizes provenance discipline: audit trails documenting how codes became themes, member checking (returning findings to participants to test the grouping), reflexive memos recording the analyst's role, and reporting standards such as COREQ (Tong et al., 2007), which require authors to make the analytic construction visible rather than presenting themes as facts that surfaced on their own
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? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
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:d15fe1eb03bf · see in the full table