Skip to content

Human versus computer-aided qualitative data analysis ratings: Spiritual content in dream reports and diary entries.

Janis Marshall, Harris L. Friedman

The Humanistic Psychologist October 1, 2012 DOI: 10.1080/08873267.2012.724255 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Comparison study of qualitative coding methods Peer reviewed
Sample size 60
Population 49 dream journals and 11 diary entries
Measures multitrait multimethod matrix
Topics Dreaming
Key findings The three CAQDAS programs' ratings converged strongly with each other, while hand-coded ratings correlated less with the CAQDAS than the CAQDAS did with each other. A multitrait multimethod matrix was interpreted as supporting the validity of both methods, and all three CAQDAS programs uncovered material missed by hand coding, which the authors suggest is a relative advantage even for ambiguous spiritual content.

Abstract

Three computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) were compared to each other and to a hand-coded method for analyzing spiritual content in 49 dream journals and 11 diary entries. The CAQDAS ratings demonstrated strong convergence with each other, despite using different assumptions; the hand-coded ratings were less correlated with the CAQDAS than the CAQDAS were to each other. The pattern of convergence and divergence of the ratings (hand coded vs. CAQDAS) and traits (dream vs. diary) was compared in a multitrait multimethod matrix, interpreted as supportive of the validity of both methods. However, all three CAQDAS uncovered material missed by the hand-coded method, suggesting their relative advantage, even when applied to content as ambiguous as spiritual categories.

Citations in the library

Explore topics