Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,013

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research

Kidd, Pamela S., Parshall, Mark B.·2000·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/104973200129118453
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the literature on focus groups, far more attention has been devoted to how groups are organized and conducted than to issues of analysis. Although exploitation of group dynamics is touted as a virtue of focus groups, there is very little guidance in the literature with respect to how differences between group and individual discourse impact the analysis and interpretation of focus group data. In this article, the authors describe analytical challenges inherent in the interpretation of focus group data and suggest approaches for enhancing the rigor of analysis and the reliability and validity of focus group findings.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/104973200129118453

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 62 references

Cited by

See all 1,013

Metadata

Authors
Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B.
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-05
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
293-308
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/104973200129118453
OpenAlex
W2106174165
Cited by
1,013
References
62
FWCI
40.54
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: Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/104973200129118453
The paper
Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000). Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research. Qualitative Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118453

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.