Draft a Qualitative Coding Frame
Draft a qualitative coding frame (codebook) with code definitions, hierarchy, examples, and a reliability plan.
Draft: Draft a Qualitative Coding Frame
Fill In Your Details (4 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are an expert qualitative analyst with experience building and applying codebooks across thematic, framework, and grounded-theory approaches. Draft a qualitative coding frame for your study and target population, working from the qualitative data sources you will be coding.
Your codebook must adhere to the following requirements:
- Code definition clarity. For each code, write a precise definition such that two independent coders applying it to the same passage would agree. Include inclusion rules (what the code covers) and exclusion rules (what the code does not cover, especially against near-miss codes). Use operational language, not theoretical jargon alone.
- Hierarchy structure. Organize codes in a parent-child hierarchy where it adds value. Codes at the same level should not overlap in meaning (mutually exclusive at each level). Set depth appropriate to the data volume.
- Exemplar coverage. For each code, include at least one anchor example that the code applies to and one near-miss example that it does not, with a one-sentence explanation of the boundary.
- Inductive-deductive balance. Mark which codes are pre-specified from the evaluation questions or theoretical framework and which are reserved for emergent codes from the data. Build in a clear process for adding emergent codes during analysis.
- Reliability plan. Include a reliability check plan: what share of transcripts will be double-coded, which agreement metric will be used (Cohen's kappa, percent agreement, Krippendorff's alpha), what threshold counts as acceptable, and how disagreements will be reconciled.
Output Format:
Produce:
- A short framing paragraph stating the evaluation questions the codebook supports and the analytic approach (thematic, framework, grounded theory).
- A code table with columns: code ID, parent code, code name, definition, inclusion rules, exclusion rules, positive example, near-miss example, deductive/inductive flag.
- An emergent-code protocol (one paragraph).
- A reliability check plan (one short section with the parameters above).
- A note on software (e.g., NVivo, Dedoose, Atlas.ti, MAXQDA, Excel) and how codes will be exported and version-controlled.
Check: Score It with the Qualitative Coding Frame Quality Rubric
The Review Prompt
Paste the draft at the bottom of this prompt and run it. It scores each criterion from 1 to 5 and says why.
You are an expert qualitative analyst with experience building and applying codebooks across thematic, framework, and grounded-theory approaches. Score the qualitative coding frame I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Qualitative Coding Frame Quality Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
DIMENSION 1: Code Definition Clarity
- Score 5: Each code is defined precisely enough that two independent coders applying it to the same passage would agree. Definitions include inclusion rules (what the code covers) and exclusion rules (what the code does not cover, especially against near-miss codes). Definitions are written in operational language, not theoretical jargon alone.
- Score 4: Most codes precisely defined. A small number rely on theoretical language without operational specification.
- Score 3: Codes have definitions but inclusion and exclusion rules are implicit. Two coders may diverge on borderline passages.
- Score 2: Codes have labels but minimal definitions. Coders will apply codes inconsistently because the rules are unstated.
- Score 1: Codes are labels only, with no definitions. Coding will be unreliable from the start.
DIMENSION 2: Hierarchy Structure
- Score 5: Where parent-child structures exist, the hierarchy is logical and reflects meaningful distinctions in the data. Codes at the same level of the hierarchy do not overlap in meaning (mutually exclusive at each level). Depth is appropriate to data volume (not so shallow that themes are lumped, not so deep that the codebook collapses under its own weight).
- Score 4: Hierarchy logical for most branches. One or two overlaps at the same level, or one branch over-decomposed.
- Score 3: Hierarchy present but with multiple overlaps at the same level. Some branches over-decomposed and others under-decomposed.
- Score 2: Hierarchy is flat where structure would help, or deep where flat would suffice. Overlaps at the same level are common.
- Score 1: No hierarchy where the data clearly requires one, or hierarchy that obscures rather than reveals structure.
DIMENSION 3: Exemplar Coverage
- Score 5: Each code carries at least one anchor example from the data that the code applies to (positive exemplar) and at least one near-miss example that it does not apply to (negative exemplar against an adjacent code). Exemplars are short, specific, and traceable to source.
- Score 4: Most codes have positive exemplars. Near-miss exemplars partial or absent for some codes.
- Score 3: Some codes have exemplars. Many codes carry only the definition. Near-miss exemplars rare.
- Score 2: A few codes carry exemplars. Most rely on the definition alone. No near-miss anchors.
- Score 1: No exemplars at all. Codebook is definitions only.
DIMENSION 4: Inductive-Deductive Balance
- Score 5: Codebook combines pre-specified codes (from evaluation questions, theoretical framework, or prior research) with emergent codes (added during the coding process from the data). The provenance of each code is noted (deductive, inductive, or hybrid). Adjustments to the codebook during coding are documented with version control.
- Score 4: Both code sources present. Provenance not always tagged. Version control of codebook updates partial.
- Score 3: Mostly deductive (driven by the EQ list) with limited emergent codes, or mostly inductive with no clear link to the evaluation questions. No version control of updates.
- Score 2: Either fully deductive with no room for emergence, or fully inductive with no link to questions. Codebook described as "final" before coding starts, or never finalized.
- Score 1: Codebook source is opaque. Cannot tell what came from the questions and what from the data.
DIMENSION 5: Reliability Plan
- Score 5: Inter-coder reliability checking is built into the analytic plan. A specific approach is named: percentage of transcripts double-coded (typically 10-20 percent), agreement metric (Cohen's kappa, Krippendorff's alpha, or percent agreement) with a target threshold, and a reconciliation process for disagreements. Solo coders document their decision audit trail as a substitute when team coding is not feasible.
- Score 4: Approach named. One element (sample size, metric, or reconciliation) thin.
- Score 3: Reliability mentioned generically. No metric or threshold. Reconciliation absent.
- Score 2: No reliability plan. Coding is assumed to be reliable without check.
- Score 1: No mention of reliability. No audit trail. No reconciliation.
OUTPUT FORMAT: Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Definition Clarity | |||
| Hierarchy Structure | |||
| Exemplar Coverage | |||
| Inductive-Deductive Balance | |||
| Reliability Plan |
Total: X/25 Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10) Single Most Important Revision: [One specific sentence]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
CODING FRAME TO SCORE: [Paste your qualitative codebook here]
Fix: Revise What Scored Low
The Revise Prompt
Paste the draft and its scores at the bottom of this prompt. It revises the parts that scored below 4.
You are an expert qualitative analyst. Review the qualitative coding frame I will provide and fix every problem that falls below the Good (4) threshold on the Qualitative Coding Frame Quality rubric.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND FIX:
Code Definition problems: Codes with labels but no operational definition. Codes defined in theoretical jargon without inclusion or exclusion rules. Borderline passages where two coders would clearly diverge.
Hierarchy problems: Sibling codes that overlap in meaning. Hierarchy too flat where structure would help, or too deep where flat would suffice. Branches over- or under-decomposed.
Exemplar problems: Codes without anchor examples. No near-miss exemplars to distinguish adjacent codes. Exemplars not traceable to source.
Inductive-Deductive Balance problems: Fully deductive codebook with no room for emergence. Fully inductive codebook with no link to evaluation questions. Codebook declared final before coding starts, or never finalized. No provenance tagging.
Reliability Plan problems: Generic mention of reliability. No metric or target threshold. No reconciliation process. No audit trail for solo coders.
OUTPUT FORMAT: For each problem found:
- Dimension: [which dimension]
- Location: [which code or section of the codebook]
- Problem: [one sentence describing what is wrong]
- Revised version: [the corrected text]
Then provide the complete revised codebook incorporating all corrections.
DRAFT CODING FRAME TO REVISE: [Paste your qualitative codebook here]