The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characteristics of the Discussion in Online and Face-to-Face Focus Groups
Abstract
Focus groups are widely used in qualitative research. Recently, focus groups that are held online have become increasingly popular despite the objection by some researchers that the Internet is a poor medium for focus group research. The present study was conducted to reveal differences in the characteristics of focus group discussions in the online and face-to-face formats. Participants in 4 online focus groups and 4 face-to-face focus groups discussed their opinions about several health-related Web sites. Statistical analysis of the transcripts suggested that online participants tended to contribute shorter comments and were more likely to say just a few words of agreement. In the online focus groups, participation levels tended to be more uniform; in the face-to-face groups, some participants tended to contribute a disproportionately large number of words, whereas other participants were relatively silent. The results suggest different roles for online and face-to-face focus groups in qualitative research.
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
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 · Cited by 2,630
Computer-mediated focus groups
Walston, J. T., & Lissitz, R. W. (2000) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x0002400502 · Cited by 75
Cited by
E‐mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion
Meho, L. I. (2006) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20416 · Cited by 745
In-Person Versus Online Focus Group Discussions: A Comparative Analysis of Data Quality
Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316631510 · Cited by 323
College Students' Barriers and Enablers for Healthful Weight Management: A Qualitative Study
Greaney, M. L., Less, F. D., White, A. A., Dayton, S. F., Riebe, D., Blissmer, B., Shoff, S., Walsh, J. R., & Greene, G. W. (2009) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.04.354 · Cited by 314
Tates, K., Zwaanswijk, M., Otten, R., van Dulmen, S., Hoogerbrugge, P. M., Kamps, W. A., & Bensing, J. M. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-15 · Cited by 226
Contesse, M. G., Fredericksen, R. J., Wohlfeiler, D., Hecht, J., Kachur, R., Strona, F. V., & Katz, D. A. (2019) · AIDS Education and Prevention · doi:10.1521/aeap.2019.31.3.273 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Schneider, S. J., Kerwin, J., Frechtling, J., & Vivari, B. A.
- Venue
- Social Science Computer Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-42
- ISSN
- 0894-4393 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8286
- OpenAlex
- W2130517001
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Characteristics of the Discussion in Online and Face-to-Face Focus Groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/089443930202000104
- The paper
- Schneider, S. J., Kerwin, J., Frechtling, J., & Vivari, B. A. (2002). Characteristics of the Discussion in Online and Face-to-Face Focus Groups. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000104
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.
