Alterlab qualitative analysis
Skill AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills/skills/social-science-workflow/alterlab-qualitative-analysis
239 evaluated academic Claude/agent skills across 17 research domains (bioinformatics, data science, clinical, social-science methods, Turkish academia & more). Executable eval per skill, deterministic citation verifier, research→write→review→publish pipeline, and a skill-finder front door. Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini CLI & Copilot.
npx -y skills add AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills --skill alterlab-qualitative-analysisAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Analyzes qualitative data as a dispatched pipeline module — codebook development, thematic / framework / content analysis, and inter-coder reliability computed correctly (Krippendorff's alpha as primary via the krippendorff package or a bundled stdlib nominal calculator with bootstrap CIs; Cohen's / Fleiss' kappa via statsmodels) with 95% CIs and thresholds (alpha >= .80 reliable, .667-.80 tentative). It BRANCHES by design: coefficient-based ICR for codebook / content-analytic coding, versus consensus-and-reflexivity for reflexive thematic analysis where a statistic is not the right criterion. Supports human-vs-LLM double-coding with an alpha check against a human gold standard. Use when coding interviews or open-ended text, building a codebook, or reporting intercoder reliability. For topic modeling / embeddings / supervised text classification prefer alterlab-text-as-data; for the reflexivity gate prefer alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
6.1 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Qualitative Analysis — Reliability When It Fits, Consensus When It Doesn't
Skill type: ANALYSIS MODULE. Codes qualitative data and reports agreement correctly. The central discipline is a branch: a reliability coefficient is right for codebook/content-analytic work, but for reflexive thematic analysis the criterion is consensus and reflexivity, not a statistic. The skill does not oversell the number.
Core Mission
KRIPPENDORFF'S ALPHA IS THE PRIMARY COEFFICIENT — BUT A COEFFICIENT IS THE WRONG TOOL FOR REFLEXIVE TA.
BRANCH BY DESIGN.
When to Use This Skill
- "Two RAs coded my interviews with a codebook — compute intercoder reliability."
- "Build/refine a codebook and report agreement."
- "I used an LLM to code open-ended responses — does it agree with my human coding?"
- "Which reliability statistics do I report for a content analysis?"
Does NOT Trigger
| The request is really about… | Route to | Why not this skill |
|---|---|---|
| Topic modeling / embeddings / supervised text classification | alterlab-text-as-data | Computational text, not human-coding reliability. |
| Whether the study is trustworthy (positionality, Lincoln & Guba) | alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate | Trustworthiness gate, not the coding itself. |
| Choosing the qualitative method (grounded theory, phenomenology) | alterlab-qualitative-methods | Methodology selection, upstream. |
| Whether a scale is reliable/valid (quantitative) | alterlab-ssci-measurement-gate | Psychometrics, different problem. |
The branch (this is the core discipline)
| Design | Reliability criterion |
|---|---|
| Codebook / content-analytic coding (fixed categories, replicable) | compute an ICR coefficient (Krippendorff's α) with a CI and threshold |
| Reflexive thematic analysis (interpretive, researcher-as-instrument) | consensus + reflexivity — collaborative discussion to understand differences; a coefficient misrepresents the epistemology and is NOT required. Route trustworthiness to alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate. |
Do not force α onto reflexive TA, and do not skip α on content-analytic coding.
Correct coefficient choice (verified)
- Krippendorff's α — primary. Handles ≥2 coders, any measurement level (nominal/ordinal/
interval/ratio), and missing data. Python
krippendorff.alpha(reliability_data=<coders × units>, level_of_measurement="nominal")returns a point estimate only — pair it with a bootstrap CI (the bundledscripts/icr.pydoes nominal α + a bootstrap CI + Cohen's κ in pure stdlib; RirrCAC::krippen.alpha.raworicr::krippalpha(..., bootstrap=TRUE)give CIs for all levels). - Cohen's κ (2 coders) / Fleiss' κ (>2, fixed number):
statsmodels.stats.inter_ratercohens_kappa,fleiss_kappa(build the count table withaggregate_raters); sklearncohen_kappa_scoreas a cross-check. - NOT valid ICR measures: chi-square, Cronbach's alpha, and Pearson's r — they measure covariation/internal consistency, not chance-corrected agreement. Refuse these.
Thresholds (Krippendorff): α ≥ .80 reliable; .667 ≤ α < .80 tentative conclusions only; α < .667 unreliable. Report α with a 95% CI, never the bare point estimate.
LLM-assisted coding (supported, never free)
Treat an LLM as another coder: human↔LLM double-coding, compute Krippendorff's α between each LLM and a human gold standard, and use the CI to judge whether the LLM is statistically indistinguishable from human coders. Disclose the model, the prompt, and the agreement — never present LLM coding as uncontrolled or cost-free.
Reporting checklist (put in every ICR report)
BRANCH: content-analytic (coefficient) | reflexive TA (consensus+reflexivity)
ICR MEASURE: Krippendorff alpha (level) | Cohen/Fleiss kappa — and why
CODERS: number of coders; human / LLM
DOUBLE-CODED: % of the data double-coded
ALPHA: point estimate + 95% CI + threshold verdict (.80 / .667)
RESOLUTION: how disagreements were resolved (adjudication / consensus)
References
references/icr_and_reporting.md— coefficient math, verified APIs, LLM-benchmarking, the reporting standard.references/reflexive_vs_codebook.md— when a statistic applies vs. when it does not.scripts/icr.py— stdlib nominal Krippendorff's α + bootstrap CI + Cohen's κ (no numpy / no deps).
Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
What ships with it: 4 files
15.5 KB alongside SKILL.md, 1 of them executable
evals/
- evals.json3.3 KB
references/
- icr_and_reporting.md3.4 KB
- reflexive_vs_codebook.md2.8 KB
scripts/
- icr.pyruns6.1 KB