Are we listening to every word? Using multiple analytic methods to examine qualitative data

Psychological researchers are increasingly striving to enhance methodological integrity, including in qualitative methods. Although computerized text analysis tools originally emerged as a potential replacement for manual coding approaches, recent studies have underscored the unique yet complementary value of employing several methods. The current study applies two text analysis methods across one qualitative dataset to explore whether each method yields information not clearly evidenced by the other, nor through traditional thematic analysis. Interviews exploring the experiences of paraprofessionals delivering Brief Psychological Interventions (BPIs) were analyzed through Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and the Meaning Extraction Method (MEM). Results revealed LIWC, MEM, and thematic analysis to be complementary in nature, each providing unique insights that could be missed by implementing any one method alone. Moreover, text analyses can serve as a form of validation for more traditional qualitative approaches while also revealing otherwise indiscernible relationships and patterns within texts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cogent Mental Health
Published
2024-12-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/28324765.2024.2433791
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.19
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are we listening to every word? Using multiple analytic methods to examine qualitative data

Emma Travers‐Hill, Nicholas R. Morrison, Rachel Maciag, Sarah D. Horwitz et al.
2 citations
Cogent Mental Health
Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
4.19
article

Are we listening to every word? Using multiple analytic methods to examine qualitative data

Emma Travers‐Hill, Nicholas R. Morrison, Rachel Maciag, Sarah D. Horwitz, Ryan L. Boyd, Young-Suk Kim
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Psychological researchers are increasingly striving to enhance methodological integrity, including in qualitative methods. Although computerized text analysis tools originally emerged as a potential replacement for manual coding approaches, recent studies have underscored the unique yet complementary value of employing several methods. The current study applies two text analysis methods across one qualitative dataset to explore whether each method yields information not clearly evidenced by the other, nor through traditional thematic analysis. Interviews exploring the experiences of paraprofessionals delivering Brief Psychological Interventions (BPIs) were analyzed through Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and the Meaning Extraction Method (MEM). Results revealed LIWC, MEM, and thematic analysis to be complementary in nature, each providing unique insights that could be missed by implementing any one method alone. Moreover, text analyses can serve as a form of validation for more traditional qualitative approaches while also revealing otherwise indiscernible relationships and patterns within texts.

Cogent Mental HealthVol. 3(1)
Harvard University (US), The University of Texas at Dallas (US), University of Kent (GB), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Westfield State University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
4.19
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.