Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carteret Al 2014 The Use of Triangulation
Carteret Al 2014 The Use of Triangulation
Carteret Al 2014 The Use of Triangulation
net/publication/265093899
CITATIONS READS
1,894 15,866
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Carter on 31 July 2023.
Nancy Carter, RN, PhD, Denise Bryant-Lukosius, RN, PhD, Alba DiCenso, RN, PhD, Jennifer Blythe, PhD,
and Alan J. Neville, MBChB, MEd, MRCP, FRCP(c)
T
riangulation refers to the use of Data source triangulation involves the roso, 2003; Webb & Kevern, 2001; Zorn,
multiple methods or data sources collection of data from different types of Roper, Broadfoot, & Weaver, 2006). In
in qualitative research to develop people, including individuals, groups, terms of time, compared to IDI inter-
a comprehensive understanding of phe- families, and communities, to gain mul- views, FGs may initially be less demand-
nomena (Patton, 1999). Triangulation also tiple perspectives and validation of data. ing to researchers; however, the time and
has been viewed as a qualitative research effort required to analyze the complex
strategy to test validity through the con- data elicited from FGs might ultimately
Data Source Triangulation
vergence of information from different negate any time savings (Mansell, Ben-
sources. Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999) Most qualitative researchers studying nett, Northway, Mead, & Moseley, 2004).
identified four types of triangulation: (a) human phenomena collect data through The nature of data yielded by these
method triangulation, (b) investigator interviews with individuals or groups; two methods of collection differs. Brown
triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, their selection of the type of interview (1999) explained that FGs differ from IDI
and (d) data source triangulation. The depends on the purpose of the study interviews in that the “dynamic and in-
current article will present the four types and the resources available. Fontana and teractive exchange among participants”
of triangulation followed by a discussion Frey (2000) described the IDI interview in FGs lead them to produce “multiple
of the use of focus groups (FGs) and in- as one of the most powerful tools for stories and diverse experiences” (p.
depth individual (IDI) interviews as an gaining an understanding of human be- 115). Fern (1982) found that those who
example of data source triangulation in ings and exploring topics in depth. IDI participated in IDI interviews generated
qualitative inquiry. interviews, ranging from the structured more ideas than did those participating
and controlled to the unstructured and in either moderated or unmoderated
Types of Triangulation fluid, can elicit rich information about FGs. In a communications study, DeJong
personal experiences and perspectives and Schellens (1998) compared the use
The first type of triangulation is meth- (Russell, Gregory, Ploeg, DiCenso, & of IDIs and FGs to evaluate the text in
od triangulation. Method triangulation Guyatt, 2005). IDI interviews allow for a brochure about alcohol consumption
involves the use of multiple methods of spontaneity, flexibility, and responsive- and found that IDI participants focused
data collection about the same phenom- ness to individuals; however, conduct- on the finer details of the text, whereas
enon (Polit & Beck, 2012). This type of ing the interviews, transcribing the the interaction among FG participants
triangulation, frequently used in quali- discourse, and analyzing the text often identified potential problems with the
tative studies, may include interviews, require considerable time and effort. brochure. Kaplowitz (2000, 2001) found
observation, and field notes. In contrast, FGs elicit data from a that IDI interview participants were
Investigator triangulation involves group of participants who can hear more likely to discuss sensitive topics
the participation of two or more re- each other’s responses and provide ad- and stimulate discussion about dif-
searchers in the same study to provide ditional comments that they might not ferent topics when compared to FG
multiple observations and conclusions. have made individually. Researchers participants. Kaplowitz and Hoehn
This type of triangulation can bring who conduct FGs recognize that the (2001) found that using FGs and IDI
both confirmation of findings and dif- participant interaction, which stimulates interviews provided different perspec-
ferent perspectives, adding breadth to the identification and sharing of various tives on resources, values, and issues
the phenomenon of interest (Denzin, perspectives on the same topic, is central and concluded that one method was not
1978). to their success (Morgan, 1996). Several better than the other, but rather that the
Theory triangulation uses different authors have pointed out that research- two approaches were complementary. In
theories to analyze and interpret data. ers rarely evaluate or discuss this ap-
With this type of triangulation, differ- proach (Clayton, Butow, Arnold, & Tat-
ent theories or hypotheses can assist tersall, 2005; Duggleby, 2005; Kitzinger, ONF, 41(5), 545–547.
the researcher in supporting or refuting 1994; Lehoux, Poland, & Daudelin, 2006;
doi: 10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
findings. Sandelowski, 2000; Sandelowski & Bar-