Typically, empirical studies that employ interpretive qualitative methods focus more often on generating than on testing theories. It is both intuitive and typically assumed by researchers that (a) the theories generated in this context have some credibility, and that (b) this credibility is in some way a function of the quality and volume of the collected data. In this paper, I discuss both claims. I argue that by conceptualizing the inference involved in qualitative interpretive theorizing as selective abduction, credibility can be defined as satisfaction of some selection criterion. I examine two possible selection criteria: likelihood and posterior probability. I discuss how these criteria can be construed in a way that sheds light on claims (a) and (b) and, at the same time, fits the practice of qualitative methods. I argue that both criteria entail rewards and limitations, but only the posterior probability criterion can explicate claim (b).