Theoretical Sampling and Category Development in Grounded Theory
Abstract
Theoretical sampling is a hallmark of grounded theory methodology, and yet there is little guidance available for researchers on how to implement this process. A review of recently published grounded theory studies in Qualitative Health Research revealed that researchers often indicate that they use theoretical sampling to choose new participants, to modify interview guides, or to add data sources as a study progresses, but few describe how theoretical sampling is implemented in response to emergent findings. In this article, two issues that arose relative to theoretical sampling in an ongoing grounded theory study are discussed. A theoretical sampling guide that was developed by the authors' research team to facilitate systematic decision making and to enhance the audit trail relative to theoretical sampling is described, and an example of how the guide was used to develop a category is presented.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
We use theoretical sampling to ensure robust coverage across different system objectives and interaction patterns.
“For this initial data collection, we use theoretical sampling [43] to ensure robust coverage across different system objectives and interaction patterns.”
From Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? (2025) · cites this paper as [43]
Grounded theory papers do not always convey a theoretical sampling approach.
“Grounded theory papers do not always convey a theoretical sampling approach (Baker et al , 1992; Draucker et al , 2007)”
From Is it really theoretical? A review of sampling in grounded theory studies in nursing journals (2016) · cites this paper as Draucker et al , 2007
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277 · see citing works
Ford-Gilboe, M., Wuest, J., & Merritt-Gray, M. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305274590 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016) · Journal of Nursing Education and Practice · doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100 · Cited by 1,994 · see citing works
Green, C. A., Duan, N., Gibbons, R. D., Hoagwood, K. E., Palinkas, L. A., & Wisdom, J. P. (2015) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-014-0552-6 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Is it really theoretical? A review of sampling in grounded theory studies in nursing journals
McCrae, N., & Purssell, E. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12986 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
The Validity of Divergent Grounded Theory Method
Amsteus, M. N. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940691401300133 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Dauman, N., Haza, M., & Erlandsson, S. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being · doi:10.1080/17482631.2018.1564520 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
A systematic review of grounded theory studies in physiotherapy
Ali, N., May, S., & Grafton, K. (2019) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2018.1474403 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?
Cemri, M., Pan, M. Z., Yang, S., Agrawal, L. A., Chopra, B., Tiwari, R., Keutzer, K., Parameswaran, A., Klein, D., Ramchandran, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13657 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“This category includes failures resulting from premature execution termination, as well as insufficient mechanisms to guarantee the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of interactions, decisions, and outcomes.”
Kent-Nye, F. E., Sheen, K. S., Burgess, K., Oza, M., Magee, L. A., Jurković, D., & Silverio, S. A. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-20882-2 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“This helped to build precision, density, and complexity into the emerging theoretical assumptions, and kept them grounded in the data [55, 56].”
- Authors
- Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B.
- Affiliations
- Kent State University (US)
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1137-1148
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2108839997
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 49.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Nursing Research (R01 NR08230-01A1, R01NR008230)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- theoretical sampling, grounded theory, category development, audit trail, participant selection, qualitative research methodology
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Research Design, Sampling Studies, Sex Offenses, Violence, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Selection, Qualitative Research
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
