Cited by 3,429Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies

Open access
Francis, Jill J., Johnston, Marie, Robertson, Clare, Glidewell, Liz, Entwistle, Vikki, Eccles, Martin P., Grimshaw, Jeremy M.·2010·Psychology & Health

Abstract

In interview studies, sample size is often justified by interviewing participants until reaching 'data saturation'. However, there is no agreed method of establishing this. We propose principles for deciding saturation in theory-based interview studies (where conceptual categories are pre-established by existing theory). First, specify a minimum sample size for initial analysis (initial analysis sample). Second, specify how many more interviews will be conducted without new ideas emerging (stopping criterion). We demonstrate these principles in two studies, based on the theory of planned behaviour, designed to identify three belief categories (Behavioural, Normative and Control), using an initial analysis sample of 10 and stopping criterion of 3. Study 1 (retrospective analysis of existing data) identified 84 shared beliefs of 14 general medical practitioners about managing patients with sore throat without prescribing antibiotics. The criterion for saturation was achieved for Normative beliefs but not for other beliefs or studywise saturation. In Study 2 (prospective analysis), 17 relatives of people with Paget's disease of the bone reported 44 shared beliefs about taking genetic testing. Studywise data saturation was achieved at interview 17. We propose specification of these principles for reporting data saturation in theory-based interview studies. The principles may be adaptable for other types of studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870440903194015

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., & Grimshaw, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Francis, Jill J.
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2010-12
Volume
25
Issue
10
Pages
1229-1245
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W1971765404
Cited by
3,429
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 343 · 2025: 405 · 2024: 444 · 2023: 333 · 2022: 332 · 2021: 359 · 2020: 219 · 2019: 215 · 2018: 187 · 2017: 159 · 2016: 147 · 2015: 116 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 27
FWCI
56.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Scottish Government
  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
data saturation, sample size determination, qualitative research reporting, stopping rules, theory of planned behavior, shared beliefs, general practitioners, Paget's disease, genetic testing, relatives
MeSH terms
Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Attitude of Health Personnel, Culture, Data Collection, England, Female, Genetic Testing, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Osteitis Deformans, Pharyngitis, Psychometrics, Scotland, Observer Variation, Sample Size, Biomedical Research, General Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review