The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool
Open accessAbstract
Thematic analysis is frequently used to analyse qualitative data in psychology, healthcare, social research and beyond. An important stage in planning a study is determining how large a sample size may be required, however current guidelines for thematic analysis are varied, ranging from around 2 to over 400 and it is unclear how to choose a value from the space in between. Some guidance can also not be applied prospectively. This paper introduces a tool to help users think about what would be a useful sample size for their particular context when investigating patterns across participants. The calculation depends on (a) the expected population theme prevalence of the least prevalent theme, derived either from prior knowledge or based on the prevalence of the rarest themes considered worth uncovering, e.g. 1 in 10, 1 in 100; (b) the number of desired instances of the theme; and (c) the power of the study. An adequately powered study will have a high likelihood of finding sufficient themes of the desired prevalence. This calculation can then be used alongside other considerations. We illustrate how to use the method to calculate sample size before starting a study and achieved power given a sample size, providing tables of answers and code for use in the free software, R. Sample sizes are comparable to those found in the literature, for example to have 80% power to detect two instances of a theme with 10% prevalence, 29 participants are required. Increasing power, increasing the number of instances or decreasing prevalence increases the sample size needed. We do not propose this as a ritualistic requirement for study design, but rather as a pragmatic supporting tool to help plan studies using thematic analysis.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
WITHDRAWN - Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/2345678906292430 · Cited by 2,250
RetractedUsing thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903 · Cited by 20,808
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · Cited by 20,391
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215
Sample size in qualitative research
Sandelowski, M. (1995) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211 · Cited by 4,372
What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies
Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870440903194015 · Cited by 3,429
Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide
Robinson, O. C. (2014) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.801543 · Cited by 3,232
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791
One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 · Cited by 1,558
Cited by
Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests
Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 · Cited by 6,311
Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022) · Qualitative Psychology · doi:10.1037/qup0000196 · Cited by 4,502
Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young, T. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 · Cited by 3,115
A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 · Cited by 2,929
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019) · Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103 · Cited by 2,910
Metadata
- Authors
- Fugard, A. J. B., & Potts, H. W. W.
- Venue
- International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-02-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 669-684
- ISSN
- 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5300
- OpenAlex
- W2051106489
- Cited by
- 749
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 125.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
- The paper
- Fugard, A. J. B., & Potts, H. W. W. (2015). Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.