Komparasi Teknik Pengumpulan Data dan Pengembangan Instrumen Penelitian pada Pendekatan Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif:Kajian Sistematis

Authors

  • Adang Ridwan Universitas Islam Batang Hari
  • Yoga Erdi Saputra UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, Indonesia
  • Ria Karmila UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, Indonesia
  • Rian Septiawan Universitas Muhammadiyah Jambi, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/concept.v5i2.2798

Keywords:

qualitative, quantitative, data collection techniques, research instrument development

Abstract

The selection of appropriate data collection techniques and the development of valid research instruments are fundamental aspects that determine the quality and credibility of educational research. Differences in research paradigms between qualitative and quantitative approaches require distinct strategies for collecting data and designing research instruments. This study aims to compare data collection techniques and research instrument development in qualitative and quantitative research approaches through a systematic review. The study employed a systematic literature review method by analyzing relevant scientific publications, including journal articles, books, and conference proceedings published in the field of educational research. The collected literature was selected, evaluated, and synthesized based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify similarities, differences, strengths, and limitations of each approach. The findings indicate that qualitative research primarily employs interviews, observations, focus group discussions, and document analysis to obtain in-depth contextual data, while its research instruments include interview guides, observation protocols, field notes, and documentation guidelines that are developed flexibly according to research contexts. In contrast, quantitative research predominantly utilizes questionnaires, structured observations, tests, and experiments with standardized instruments that emphasize validity, reliability, and objectivity. The comparison further reveals that qualitative instrument development prioritizes credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, whereas quantitative instrument development focuses on content validity, construct validity, criterion validity, and reliability testing. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of data collection techniques and research instrument development in both approaches, offering practical guidance for researchers in selecting appropriate methods based on research objectives and designs.

References

Badu, E., Brien, A. P. O., & Mitchell, R. (2019). An integrative review on methodological considerations in mental health research – design , sampling , data collection procedure and quality assurance. 1–15.

Faqih, A. A. (2026). Journal of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Best Practices Dalam Pengumpulan Data dan Penyusunan Instrumen : Panduan Aplikatif Untuk Peneliti Kuantitatif. 3(2), 120–139.

Harja, H., Sawitry, M., & Ridwan, A. (2026). MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN GURU MGMP BAHASA INDONESIA SMP NEGERI DI KOTA JAMBI DALAM MENYUSUN Correspondent Email : lina.harja@gmail.com menyusun Learning Community ( PLC ) yang mendorong kolaborasi guru dalam pengembangan. 1(1), 35–44.

Hossimah, N. (2025). Perbandingan Metode Pendekatan Kualitatif dan Pendekatan Kuantitatif dalam Penelitian Pendidikan Biologi. 03(02), 444–451.

Huda, N., & Marzal, J. (2026). Analyzing Students ’ Thinking Processes in Solving Exponential Problems Based on APOS Theory : A Qualitative Study at SMA Negeri 7 Tanjung Jabung Timur. 10(April), 69–81.

Jailani, M. S. (2023). Teknik Pengumpulan Data Dan Instrumen Penelitian Ilmiah Pendidikan Pada Pendekatan Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif. 1, 1–9.

Justesen, T., Freyberg, J., & Schultz, A. N. Ø. (2021). Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study. 2, 1–12.

Mcleod, L., Macdonell, S. G., & Doolin, B. (2011). Qualitative Research on Software Development : A Longitudinal Case Study Methodology. 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-010-9153-5

Prayogi, A., & Kurniawan, M. A. (2024). Pendekatan Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif : Suatu Telaah Complex : Jurnal Multidisiplin Ilmu Nasional. 1, 30–37.

Purwanto, B., Tarihoran, N., & Firdaus, R. (2025). The Evolution of Data Collection Techniques in Early Childhood Education Management Research : A Literature Review. 9(2), 374–388.

Raihan, M., Syauqi, A., Nurfauji, B. B., Hadi, H., Zuriyah, Y., & Priatna, T. (2026). Journal of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Kajian Teknik Analisis Data Kuantitatif , Kualitatif , dan Mixed Methods dalam Artikel Jurnal Nasional Indonesia : Systematic Literature Review. 3(1), 25–34.

Ridwan, A., Astuti, A., Sawitry, M., & Saputra, E. (2026). Student Learning Independence in Digital Era through the Rumah Belajar Application at the Junior High School Level. 9(3), 654–664.

Ridwan, A., Karmila, R., Hidayati, S., Harja, H., & Septiawan, R. (2026). Transformasi Kompetensi Guru dengan Inovasi Pembelajaran Berkarakter Berbasis Artificial Intelligence di Madrasah Tsanawiyah Nurul Huda Muaro Jambi Transfo

Sandra, Y., Suryadi, D., Herman, T., & Indonesia, U. P. (2025). Analisis Pembelajaran Matematika Pada Materi Penyajian Data Berdasarkan Teori Situasi Didaktis. 09(02), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.35706/sjme.v9i2.195

Siringoringo, H., Desviana, A., Ramadani, S., & Khaddafi, M. (2025). THE ESSENCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE. 3575–3580.

Syahrizal, H., & Jailani, M. S. (2023). Jenis-Jenis Penelitian Dalam Penelitian Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Jurnal QOSIM Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial & Humaniora, 1(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.61104/jq.v1i1.49

Downloads

Published

2026-07-14 — Updated on 2026-07-14

Versions

How to Cite

Adang Ridwan, Saputra, Y. E., Karmila, R., & Septiawan, R. (2026). Komparasi Teknik Pengumpulan Data dan Pengembangan Instrumen Penelitian pada Pendekatan Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif:Kajian Sistematis . Concept: Journal of Social Humanities and Education, 5(2), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.55606/concept.v5i2.2798