E 24 response codes assigned to a particular thematic category. Depending on

E 24 response codes assigned to a particular thematic category. Depending on the depth of interview probes, a participant’s responses are typically encoded into 1 to 3 response codes per case, which across cases can yield a total number of response codes, for example, 120.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Mix Methods Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 11.Castro et al.Pageto women and others”; (c) “emotional control–arrogant and bossy to women and others”; (d) a “man who drinks”; (e) “protects, supports, and provides for the family”; (f) “emotionally unavailable”; (g) “being responsible”; (h) “emotionally available”; (i) “emotional–showing honor”; and (j) “physical representation of strength, outer appearance.” Coder 2 identified eight thematic categories: (a) “avoids being negative–selfcontrol”; (b) “expresses emotions”; (c) “high-ego, superiority, controlling, and arrogant”; (d) “disrespectful to women, womanizer, verbally and physically abusive, drinks”; (e) “family oriented–caring, respectful, provider, and protective”; (f) “Mirogabalin chemical information honorable–related to cultural manliness”; (g) “non-womanizer, shows respect to women, believes in equal rights”; and (h) “physical attributes–strong and tough.” Matching thematic categories produced by the XR9576 site independent raters–As we have developed this methodology, in a concordance analysis, we examine both independent coder solutions to reconcile them into an “optimal solution,” as defined above. During “Round Table 1,” a “thematic category round table review,” this optimal solution is attained using a constant comparison of the independently derived thematic categories and the response codes which they contain. In the present example, the replicated thematic categories formed across independent coders were (a) “non-womanizer, respectful to women, equal opportunity” (from Coder 1) and (b) “nonwomanizer, shows respect to women, believes in equal rights” (from Coder 2), where these matching thematic categories clearly contributed to the optimal solution. These two thematic categories were almost identical, and we relabeled these as the common category, “respectful and egalitarian toward women” (see Table 1). Further inspection of the thematic categories across both coders revealed an approximate matching of response codes for the following categories: “protects, supports, and provides for the family” from Coder 1, and “family oriented–caring, respectful, provider, and protective” from Coder 2. We then relabeled that common thematic category as “family oriented” (see Table 1). Under this concordance analysis, this reconciling process yielded six thematic categories that had sufficient interrater agreement to contribute common thematic categories to the optimal solution (see Table 1). For two other categories there remained unmatched codes that did not explicitly mention “women.” Coder 1 contributed the categories of (a) “physical control–abusive to … others,” (b) “emotional control–abusive to … others,” (c) “emotional–showing honor,” and (d) “being responsible.” And Coder 2 contributed to (a) “avoids being negative–selfcontrol”; (b) high-ego, superiority, controlling, and arrogant”; and (c) “honorable–related to cultural manliness.” An inspection of these categories and their response codes (looking beyond the labels) revealed that the two categories from Coder 1, “emotional–showing honor” and “being responsible,” corresponded well with t.E 24 response codes assigned to a particular thematic category. Depending on the depth of interview probes, a participant’s responses are typically encoded into 1 to 3 response codes per case, which across cases can yield a total number of response codes, for example, 120.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Mix Methods Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 11.Castro et al.Pageto women and others”; (c) “emotional control–arrogant and bossy to women and others”; (d) a “man who drinks”; (e) “protects, supports, and provides for the family”; (f) “emotionally unavailable”; (g) “being responsible”; (h) “emotionally available”; (i) “emotional–showing honor”; and (j) “physical representation of strength, outer appearance.” Coder 2 identified eight thematic categories: (a) “avoids being negative–selfcontrol”; (b) “expresses emotions”; (c) “high-ego, superiority, controlling, and arrogant”; (d) “disrespectful to women, womanizer, verbally and physically abusive, drinks”; (e) “family oriented–caring, respectful, provider, and protective”; (f) “honorable–related to cultural manliness”; (g) “non-womanizer, shows respect to women, believes in equal rights”; and (h) “physical attributes–strong and tough.” Matching thematic categories produced by the independent raters–As we have developed this methodology, in a concordance analysis, we examine both independent coder solutions to reconcile them into an “optimal solution,” as defined above. During “Round Table 1,” a “thematic category round table review,” this optimal solution is attained using a constant comparison of the independently derived thematic categories and the response codes which they contain. In the present example, the replicated thematic categories formed across independent coders were (a) “non-womanizer, respectful to women, equal opportunity” (from Coder 1) and (b) “nonwomanizer, shows respect to women, believes in equal rights” (from Coder 2), where these matching thematic categories clearly contributed to the optimal solution. These two thematic categories were almost identical, and we relabeled these as the common category, “respectful and egalitarian toward women” (see Table 1). Further inspection of the thematic categories across both coders revealed an approximate matching of response codes for the following categories: “protects, supports, and provides for the family” from Coder 1, and “family oriented–caring, respectful, provider, and protective” from Coder 2. We then relabeled that common thematic category as “family oriented” (see Table 1). Under this concordance analysis, this reconciling process yielded six thematic categories that had sufficient interrater agreement to contribute common thematic categories to the optimal solution (see Table 1). For two other categories there remained unmatched codes that did not explicitly mention “women.” Coder 1 contributed the categories of (a) “physical control–abusive to … others,” (b) “emotional control–abusive to … others,” (c) “emotional–showing honor,” and (d) “being responsible.” And Coder 2 contributed to (a) “avoids being negative–selfcontrol”; (b) high-ego, superiority, controlling, and arrogant”; and (c) “honorable–related to cultural manliness.” An inspection of these categories and their response codes (looking beyond the labels) revealed that the two categories from Coder 1, “emotional–showing honor” and “being responsible,” corresponded well with t.