Member checking is also called respondent validation. It is a technique used in qualitative research to enhance the accuracy, credibility, and validity of a study. A researcher accomplishes member checking by presenting data, interpretations, or findings back to the participants from whom they were derived.
Presenting qualitative results to participants allows them to confirm or correct the information. This way, the researcher’s interpretation of qualitative data is confirmed or validated by the participants.
How to Do Member Checking
Several strategies are often used to implement member checking in qualitative research.
1. Returning Interview Transcripts
In qualitative data collection, data recording is often transcribed. The transcripts generated from interviews are supposed to be verified by participants. Member checking can be achieved by returning the interview transcripts to participants so that they can confirm the accuracy of their words.
Apart from confirming that the data captured in the transcripts are correct, returning interview records to participants also open up an opportunity for them to add new information.
2. Sharing analyzed data
The second strategy for undertaking member checking is sharing analyzed data with participants. After completing data analysis, the researcher can share synthesized findings or themes with participants. This allows participants to assess whether the interpretations resonate with their experiences and to suggest modifications if necessary.
3. Conducting follow-up interviews
Member checking can also be achieved through follow-up interviews. The researcher discusses initial findings with participants in an interactive session designed to facilitate deeper understanding and allow participants to provide quick, real-time feedback on the interpretations.
What form of validity is established by member checking?
Member checking primarily establishes credibility in qualitative research. Credibility is the confidence in the truth of the findings and is comparable to internal validity in quantitative research. Therefore, involving participants in the verification of data and interpretations allows authentication of research findings thereby enhancing its internal validity or trustworthiness.
Examples of Member Checking
Example 1. In a study exploring teachers’ experiences with remote learning, a researcher conducts in-depth interviews with several educators. After transcribing and analyzing the interviews, the researcher shares the synthesized themes with the participants. One teacher notes that a particular theme does not fully capture their experience and provides additional context.
Original theme
Teachers found remote learning technology easy to integrate into their daily instruction.
Teacher’s feedback and additional context
While I did eventually get comfortable using the technology, this theme doesn’t reflect the initial challenges I faced such as limited training and ongoing technical difficulties. Integrating technology was not easy at first, and even later. So, it required considerable extra planning time.
Refined theme after member checking
Although teachers eventually adapted to remote learning technology, many initially encountered significant challenges, including insufficient training, technical issues, and increased preparation time.
Member Checking Interview Questions
While providing participants with the findings and asking for comments is a valuable approach, a more structured approach would lead to greater value. The following questions are proposed as a way to conduct meaningful member checking. When sending the findings to participants, the researchers should conduct a brief 10–15-minute interview addressing the following questions. These questions could also be sent to participants prior to the interview, so they are able to reflect prior to the interview. Below are the member-checking interview questions:
1. After reading through the findings, what are your general thoughts?
2. How accurately do you feel the findings captured your thoughts/experiences?
3. What could be added to the findings to capture your experiences better?
4. If there is anything you would like removed, what would that be and why?
