Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In-Person Versus Online Focus Group Discussions: A Comparative Analysis of Data Quality

Woodyatt, Cory R., Finneran, Catherine A., Stephenson, Rob·2016·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/1049732316631510
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Online focus group discussions (FGDs) are becoming popular as a qualitative research method. Methodological examinations regarding the data quality of online versus more traditional in-person FGDs are limited. We compared two online FGDs with two in-person FGDs conducted with gay and bisexual men using a sensitive topic (the experience of intimate partner violence) to examine differences in data quality between the two methods. The online FGDs resulted in larger word count but were shorter in time than the in-person FGDs. There was high overlap in the themes generated across groups; however, the online discussions yielded one additional theme regarding a sensitive topic. In-person FGDs involved less sharing of in-depth stories, whereas sensitive topics were discussed more candidly in the online FGDs. The results illustrate that although the format of the data generated from each type of FGD may differ, the content of the data generated is remarkably similar.

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 · 10.1177/1049732316631510

Cites

44 of 44 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 44 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R.
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-03-01
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
741-749
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/1049732316631510
OpenAlex
W2291032754
Cited by
323
References
44
FWCI
39.06
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

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.