Critical Incident Technique

The critical incident technique (CIT) is a qualitative research method with roots in industrial and organizational psychology. Early use of the CIT was developed by John Flanagan and focused primarily on determining the job requirements critical for success in a variety of occupations across many industries, relied on expert observations in the field, and was used as a tool to create a functional description of an activity. The CIT was defined by Flanagan as a set of procedures to collect direct observations of human behaviors in a way that facilitates their use in solving practical problems and developing broad psychological principles. Since its introduction more than 50 years ago, it has evolved into a robust research method whose influence has expanded into many disciplines, including counseling, nursing, psychology, education, job analysis, marketing, social work, and organizational learning.

Since its inception, the CIT has advanced in two major ways as chronicled by Lee Butterfield and colleagues. First, whereas initially it was very behaviorally based, now it is also applied to studying psychological states or experiences. Second, emphasis has shifted from direct observation by experts to retrospective self-report. These changes have proven to be fruitful in a number of research studies, but there also have been some challenges. Due to the increased subjectivity of the data gathering, there is a greater need for establishing credibility or trustworthiness checks. What follows is an overview of the current steps involved in conducting a CIT study and the credibility checks that need to be incorporated.

A number of researchers have suggested that the CIT have the following five major steps.

Step 1: Ascertain the general aims of the activity to be studied. In essence, this becomes the research question—the activity or psychological construct that one wants to observe or have participants self-report.

Step 2: Make plans and set specifications. Flanagan described four specifications to be decided on: (1) defining the types of situations to be observed or reported, (2) determining the situation's/experience's relevance to the general aim, (3) understanding the extent of the situation's/experience's effect on the general aim, and (4) deciding who will make the observations or whether participants will self-report.

Step 3: Collect the data. Data collection can be done by direct observation of people performing a task by supervisors or experts in the field or through participants recalling past incidents or experiences and [Page 159]describing them in face-to-face or telephone interviews or by questionnaire. When data collection involves an interview, it is important for the interviewer to start by establishing rapport. The interviewer then proceeds to gather the critical incidents that helped or hindered participants, their importance or meaning to participants, the outcome of having employed the critical incidents, and an example (if possible). In a CIT study, the size of the sample is determined by the number of critical incidents gathered, not the number of participants. Demographic information is usually collected at the end of the interview.

Step 4: Analyze the data. This involves (a) determining the frame of reference that arises from the use to be made of the data, (b) formulating the categories through an inductive process, and (c) determining the level of specificity or generality to be used in reporting the data. The narrative form of a CIT study is that of categories with operational definitions and self-descriptive titles.

...