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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
