Cited by 4,597Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?

Open access
Hennink, Monique M., Kaiser, Bonnie N., Marconi, Vincent C.·2017·Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

Saturation is a core guiding principle to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet little methodological research exists on parameters that influence saturation. Our study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning saturation. We examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, we found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation where we developed a richly textured understanding of issues. Thus, code saturation may indicate when researchers have “heard it all,” but meaning saturation is needed to “understand it all.” We used our results to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used to estimate sample sizes for qualitative research proposals or to document in publications the grounds on which saturation was achieved.

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 · 10.1177/1049732316665344

Cites

25 of 25 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

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?

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 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fusch P., 2015, The Qualitative Report, 20, 1208

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,012

Metadata

Authors
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Hennink, Monique M.
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2016-09-26
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
591-608
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2524597629
Cited by
4,597
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1096 · 2025: 933 · 2024: 700 · 2023: 538 · 2022: 482 · 2021: 379 · 2020: 219 · 2019: 125 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 1
FWCI
365.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Emory University
  • Center for AIDS Research, University of Washington
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P30AI050409)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
saturation, sample size determination, qualitative research, in-depth interviews
MeSH terms
Humans, Interviews as Topic, Research Design, Sample Size, 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