This paper critically examines Rosedale and Fu's (2010) qualitative study on distressing symptom experiences among breast cancer survivors. It addresses seven analytical questions covering the study's data collection procedures, reliability and validity measures, limitations of secondary data analysis, participant demographics, variables studied, inferential reasoning used in qualitative coding, and the effectiveness of visual data presentation. The paper highlights how secondary analysis of interviews originally conducted for a loneliness study raises questions of applicability, and evaluates the researchers' methods for establishing thematic coherence and credibility in their findings.
The researchers conducted a secondary analysis of data originally collected for an earlier study, Survivor Loneliness of Women Following Breast Cancer (Rosedale & Fu, 2010). The data collection procedure for that earlier study was based on interviews of volunteer participants. The interviews, which lasted approximately 90 minutes, included participants completing a questionnaire, speaking freely about their experiences, and sharing any personal written or artistic material they wished to contribute — such as diary entries or poetry (Rosedale, 2009).
The interviews were recorded, and the researcher also took notes capturing their own impressions of each participant's demeanor, nonverbal behavior, and emotional responses (Rosedale, 2009). This qualitative research approach was designed to capture the full range of participants' subjective experiences following breast cancer treatment.
To address reliability and validity, the authors implemented a series of checks and balances in which different groups examined the material in different ways. The authors worked with qualitative researchers who reviewed the data and classified key quotations from the interviews into distinct codes. These codes were collected into a single file and reviewed separately from the original data. The group then met to compare the major themes they had each identified and to resolve any differences of opinion. Finally, the final set of major themes was validated against the original interview data (Rosedale & Fu, 2010).
This multi-stage process reflects common strategies for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research, including peer debriefing and member checking of themes against source material.
This study is a secondary analysis of data gathered for a different study. Because the original study addressed a different research question, the data available may not be fully applicable to the current one. The first study focused on loneliness, so the responses participants gave may not be directly applicable to this study, which aims to examine a broader range of emotional responses beyond loneliness. This mismatch in original intent and subsequent application represents a meaningful limitation of the secondary analysis design.
"Participant age range, setting, and recruitment details"
"Symptom distress variables and qualitative inference use"
"Venn diagram critique and presentation effectiveness"
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.