1. Khankeh H, Ranjbar M, Khorasani-Zavareh D, Zargham-Boroujeni A, Johansson E. Challenges in conducting qualitative research in health: A conceptual paper. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2015;20(6):635-41. [
DOI:10.4103/1735-9066.170010] [
PMID] [
PMCID]
2. Davidsen AS. Phenomenological approaches in psychology and health sciences. Qual Res Psychol 2013;10(3):318-39. [
DOI:10.1080/14780887.2011.608466] [
PMID] [
PMCID]
3. Lopez KA, Willis DG. Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual Health Res 2004;14(5):726-35. [
DOI:10.1177/1049732304263638] [
PMID]
4. Van Manen M. But Is It Phenomenology? Qual Health Res 2017;27(6):775-9. [
DOI:10.1177/1049732317699570] [
PMID]
5. Maxwell J. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harv Educ Rev 1992;62(3):279-301. [
DOI:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826]
6. Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology 1981;29(2):75. [
DOI:10.1007/BF02766777]
7. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Dir Eval 1986;1986(30):73-84. [
DOI:10.1002/ev.1427]
8. Collier-Reed BI, Ingerman Å, Berglund A. Reflections on trustworthiness in phenomenographic research: Recognising purpose, context and change in the process of research. Educ as Chang 2009;13(2):339-55. [
DOI:10.1080/16823200903234901]
9. Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2003;8(4):597-607. [
Google Scholar]
10. Shahsavari A, Alamolhoda J. Methodology of Research Reviews and Its Role in Knowledge Production: Developing a Typology. Metodology of Sicial Science and Humanities 2019;25(98):79-105. [
Google Scholar]
11. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf 2004;22(2):63-75. [
DOI:10.3233/EFI-2004-22201]
12. Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract 2000;39(3):124-30. [
DOI:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2]
13. Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2015;4(3):324. [
DOI:10.4103/2249-4863.161306] [
PMID] [
PMCID]
14. Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1993;16(2):1-8. [
DOI:10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002] [
PMID]
15. Cohen MZ, Kahn DL, Steeves RH. Hermeneutic phenomenological research: A practical guide for nurse researchers. California: Sage Publications; 2000. [
DOI:10.4135/9781452232768]
16. Koch T. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. J Adv Nurs 1994;19(5):976-86. [
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01177.x] [
PMID]
17. Beck CT, Keddy BA, Cohen MZ. Reliability and validity issues in phenomenological research. West J Nurs Res 1994;16(3):254-67. [
DOI:10.1177/019394599401600303] [
PMID]
18. De Witt L, Ploeg J. Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2006;55(2):215-29. [
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03898.x] [
PMID]
19. Husserl E. Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013. [
Google Scholar]
20. Khankeh H, Khorasani-Zavareh D, Hoseini S-A, Khodai-Ardekandi M-R, Ekman S-L, Bohm K, et al. The journey between ideal and real: Experiences of beginners psychiatric nurses. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2014;19(4):396. [
PMCID]
21. Hamedanchi A, Khankeh HR, Fadayevatan R, Teymouri R, Sahaf R. Bitter experiences of elderly parents of children with intellectual disabilities: A phenomenological study. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2016;21(3):278. [
DOI:10.4103/1735-9066.180385] [
PMID] [
PMCID]
22. Kockelmans JJ. Martin Heidegger a First Introduction to His Philosophy. 1965. [
Google Scholar]
23. Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: Routledge; 2016. [
URL]
24. Armour M, Rivaux SL, Bell H. Using context to build rigor: Application to two hermeneutic phenomenological studies. Qual Soc Work 2009;8(1):101-22. [
DOI:10.1177/1473325008100424]
25. Åkerlind GS. Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. High Educ Res Dev 2005;24(4):321-34. [
DOI:10.1080/07294360500284672]
26. Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe LV, O'Brien BC, Rees CE. Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ 2017;51(1):40-50. [
DOI:10.1111/medu.13124] [
PMID]
27. McGaha KK, D'Urso PA. A non-traditional validation tool: using cultural domain analysis for interpretive phenomenology. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2019;22(6):585-98. [
DOI:10.1080/13645579.2019.1621474]
28. Thurmond VA. The point of triangulation. J Nurs Scholarsh 2001;33(3):253-8. [
DOI:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00253.x] [
PMID]
29. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001;322(7294):1115-7. [
DOI:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115] [
PMID] [
PMCID]
30. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications; 2016. [
URL]
31. Ray MA. The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic, and methodologic concerns. Critical issues in qualitative research methods 1994:117-33. [
Google Scholar]
32. Madison GB. The hermeneutics of postmodernity: Figures and themes. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1988. [
Google Scholar]
33. Whitehead L. Enhancing the quality of hermeneutic research: Decision trail. J Adv Nurs 2004;45(5):512-8. [
DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02934.x] [
PMID]
34. Hamedanchi A, Zanjari N, Khankeh HR, Abolfathi Momtaz Y. What Does It Mean to Be Never Married in Later Life? Application of Phenomenology in an Aging Study. Qual Rep 2021;26(4):1232-47. [
DOI:10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4652]