Factors Influencing Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research: A Systematic Literature Review

Qualitative research is vital for understanding meanings, experiences, and complex social processes across disciplines, yet ensuring the rigor of qualitative findings remains a persistent challenge due to their interpretive nature. In response to the limitations of positivist criteria, trustworthiness has emerged as the primary framework for evaluating qualitative quality, although existing scholarship remains conceptually fragmented across criteria-based, process-oriented, and reporting-focused approaches. This study presents a PRISMA 2020 guided systematic literature review of 48 foundational and contemporary studies published between 1985 and 2024 to synthesize global evidence on factors influencing trustworthiness in qualitative research. The review examines conceptual foundations and identifies key philosophical, methodological, research-related, reporting, and ethical-contextual factors, integrating classical and contemporary perspectives into a coherent analytical framework. Findings demonstrate that trustworthiness is embedded throughout the qualitative research lifecycle, requiring epistemological alignment, methodological rigor, reflexivity, transparent reporting, and contextual sensitivity rather than reliance on isolated techniques or checklists. By consolidating diverse methodological debates, the review contributes an integrative framework that enhances conceptual clarity and provides practical guidance to strengthen the rigor, credibility, and applicability of qualitative research across disciplines and contexts

Qualitative research; Trustworthiness; Credibility; Dependability; Confirmability; Transferability; Systematic literature review; PRISMA 2020; Methodological rigor; Reflexivity

1. Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of emerging trends in educational research and policy studies (jeteraps), 5(2), 272-281. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. Bmj, 322(7294), 1115-1117. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative research, 15(2), 219-234. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 328-352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chandra, Y., & Shang, L. (2019). Qualitative research using R: A systematic approach. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cope, D. G. (2014, January). Methods and meanings: credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. In Oncology nursing forum (Vol. 41, No. 1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. De Vos, A. S. (Ed.). (2002). Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human services professions. Van Schaik. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. De Vos, A., Strydom, H., Fouche, C. and Delport, C. (2011) Research at Grass Roots: For Social Sciences and Human Services Professions. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., MacLure, M., Otterstad, A. M., Torrance, H., Cannella, G. S., ... & McTier, T. (2017). Critical qualitative methodologies: Reconceptualizations and emergent construction. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10(4), 482-498. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE open, 4(1), 2158244014522633. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative research, 2(2), 209-230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Flick, U. (2022). An introduction to qualitative research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hennink, M., Bailey, A., & Hutter, I. (2020). Qualitative research methods. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Koch, T. (1994). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of advanced nursing, 19(5), 976-986. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Koch T. (2006) Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Advanced Nursing 53(1), 91–100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative inquiry, 1(1), 19-40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Liamputtong, P. (2013). The science of words and the science of numbers. Research method in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. South Melbourne: Oxford, 4-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lincoln, Y. (1980). Guba. E.(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage. LincolnNaturalistic Inquiry1985. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4(2), 97-128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The lancet, 358(9280), 483-488. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1753-1760. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative inquiry, 18(8), 655-661. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. Bmj, 320(7226), 50-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-based nursing, 18(2), 34-35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. O’Cathain A. (2018). A practical guide to using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. O’Cathain, A. (2019). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods 3rd. ed. Sage publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Perera, N., & Fernando, P. (2018). Reflexivity and rigor in qualitative social research in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences, 41(2), 97–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 304-310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in nursing science, 16(2), 1-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Singh, K. D. (2015). Creating your own qualitative research approach: Selecting, integrating and operationalizing philosophy, methodology and methods. Vision, 19(2), 132-146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Thorne, S. (2025). Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice (p. 354). Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Thorne, S. (2016). Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of advanced nursing, 48(4), 388-396. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. 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, 19(6), 349-357. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and health, 15(2), 215-228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative health research. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods, 235-251. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria