Problem: Reply positive with follow up: Kross and Guist (2019) highlight the subtle yet significant risks of researcher bias, especially in qualitative and trauma-informed research. Bias can emerge through confirmation bias favoring data that aligns with expectations or through sampling bias, where participant selection unintentionally reinforces assumptions. These risks are amplified when researchers have personal connections to the topic or strong emotional investments, as is often the case in studies involving trauma, identity, or family dynamics. To minimize bias, the recommended strategies include reflexivity, triangulation, peer debriefing, audit trails, and member checking. Reflexivity involves ongoing self-examination of the researcher's positionality and emotional responses, while triangulation strengthens validity by using multiple data sources or methods. Peer debriefing invites critical feedback from colleagues, and audit trails document decision-making transparently. Member checking allows participants to confirm or challenge interpretations of their data. In my own dissertation focused on sibling differences in trauma outcomes and resilience I am highly likely to use these strategies. Reflexivity journals will help me track my assumptions and emotional reactions, triangulation will allow me to compare sibling narratives with caregiver insights, and peer debriefing will ensure my interpretations remain grounded and respectful. These strategies align with my trauma-informed. Need Assignment Help?