Background: Qualitative research frequently faces skepticism regarding its systematic rigor and construct ambiguity, particularly when investigating subtle, context-dependent phenomena like racial microaggressions.

Objective: This study examines the methodological utility of Cognitive Interviewing (CI) in enhancing qualitative validity across two distinct phases: interview protocol development (Study 1) and result interpretation (Study 2), using a case study on racial microaggressions among East and Southeast Asian (EASA) individuals in the Netherlands.

Method: Study 1 utilized retrospective CI with pilot focus groups (N = 9) to refine linguistic and cultural resonance. Study 2 repurposed CI as a co-constructed thematic member-checking tool with a culturally cohesive EASA sample (N = 10) following reflexive thematic analysis of 3 focus groups. Participants reflected and thus co-constructed the results via cognitive interviewing.

Results: Study 1 successfully bridged the researcher-participant gap by simplifying dense academic definitions into accessible phrasing, reducing construct ambiguity. Study 2 revealed six robust themes detailing participants' lived experiences: (1) Public Space Hostility, (2) Nominal Erasure, (3) De-individuation and Othering, (4) Academic and Social Exclusion through Language, (5) The Intent-Impact Disconnect, and (6) Relational Identity Mapping. These themes were further revised and co-constructed with participants to harmonize the participant’s and the researcher’s interpretation.

Conclusion: Repurposing CI from quantitative pre-testing into a qualitative asset establishes an iterative framework for interpretive rigor. By shifting from researcher-centered interpretation to participant-validated meaning, CI mitigates researcher bias, ensures ecological validity, and accurately captures the multi-dimensional survival matrices of marginalized groups.