The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out. METHODS: We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed. RESULTS: We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“More participants may be recruited in additional focus groups and/or interviews until saturation is met in line with established recommendations for focus group thematic analysis.72”
From Novel ACT-based eHealth psychoeducational intervention for students with mental distress: A study protocol for a mixed-methodology pilot trial (2019) · cites this paper as [72]
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
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,637
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Basics of Qualitative Research
Ozanne, J. L., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172751 · Cited by 17,852
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1993) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,625
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
McQuarrie, E. F., & Krueger, R. A. (1989) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172912 · Cited by 15,489
(1990) · Cited by 11,110
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 669
MyCites: a proposal to mark and report inaccurate citations in scholarly publications
Hosseini, M., Eve, M. P., Gordijn, B., & Neylon, C. (2020) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00099-8 · Cited by 18
“In a similar exercise, Glenton and Carlsen assessed 205 articles that cited their 2011 paper about sample sizes in focus groups [7].”
Perspectives About Health Care Provision in Dementia Care in Spain
Risco, E., Cabrera, E., Farré, M., Alvira, C., Miguel, S., & Zabalegui, A. (2015) · American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · doi:10.1177/1533317515603818 · Cited by 18
“This study design was chosen as it is a means of collecting research data through moderated group discussion based on participants’ perceptions and experience.(13) It was considered that a group discussion would encourage participants to share experiences and that, in group dynamics, it is the group, rather than the c…”
MethodTintorer, D. L., Manresa‐Domínguez, J. M., Ribera, E. P., Beneyto, S. F., Mundet, X., & Saigí-Rubió, F. (2018) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-018-0739-0 · Cited by 21
The role of patients in the delivery of safe care in hospital: Study protocol
Chegini, Z., Janati, A., Babaie, J., & Pouraghaei, M. (2019) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.14045 · Cited by 18
Lee, S., Bobb Swanson, M., Fillman, A., Carnahan, R. M., Seaman, A. T., & Reisinger, H. S. (2023) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.18047 · Cited by 16
Guidelines for Patient-Centered Documentation in the Era of Open Notes: Qualitative Study
Vanka, A., Johnston, K. T., Delbanco, T., DesRoches, C. M., Garcia, A., Salmi, L., & Blease, C. (2024) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/59301 · Cited by 18
Coyne, E., Grafton, E. T., & Reid, A. (2016) · Contemporary Nurse · doi:10.1080/10376178.2016.1181979 · Cited by 17
McKenzie, K., Whelan, K. J., Mayer, C., McNall, A., Noone, S., & Chaplin, J. (2018) · British Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1111/bld.12236 · Cited by 17
Exploring the Doctor of Nursing Practice project facilitator/mentor role
Staffileno, B. A., Murphy, M. P., Hinch, B., & Carlson, E. A. (2019) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2019.01.005 · Cited by 17
Flight, L., Julious, S. A., Brennan, A., Todd, S., & Hind, D. (2020) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-4137-2 · Cited by 17
Micklewright, K., & Farquhar, M. C. (2021) · Chronic Illness · doi:10.1177/1742395321999433 · Cited by 17
“Recruitment numbers and localities resulted in four small focus groups, however data collected were rich, with the smaller group sizes enabling sufficient time for all participants to contribute.(31,32) As the topic guide required consideration of all 15 CSNAT domains, this was particularly advantageous.”
BackgroundRoux, F., Burns, S. K., Chih, H., & Hendriks, J. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023582 · Cited by 23
“Additional focus groups in either population may be recruited to saturation, which is consistent with qualitative research.(69) The focus groups will be facilitated by the research team using a semi-structured interview guide, and conducted at a suitably quiet location at each school.”
MethodBagonza, A., Peterson, S., Mårtensson, A., Wamani, H., Awor, P., Mutto, M., Musoke, D., Gibson, L. M., & Kitutu, F. E. (2020) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · doi:10.1186/s40545-020-00265-9 · Cited by 17
“Each FGD is comprised of ten participants which are desirable for an FGD [30].”
BackgroundOsibogun, A. O., Osibogun, O. I., Odukoya, O., & Odusolu, Y. (2020) · Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/npmj.npmj_261_20 · Cited by 17
Wikberg, C., Pettersson, A., Westman, J., Björkelund, C., & Petersson, E. (2016) · Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · doi:10.1080/02813432.2016.1248635 · Cited by 17
“In theory there are recommendations on five to eight in each focus-group discussion,[14] but in reality there is not any set number as to how large a focus-group discussion should be.”
BackgroundScleroderma patient perspectives on social support from close social relationships
Milette, K., Thombs, B. D., Dewez, S., Körner, A., & Peláez, S. (2019) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1531151 · Cited by 17
“, to address SSc disease rarity and difficulties involved with bringing together a large number of patients) [1], the sample size remained small and did not allow for theoretical saturation [63,64].”
BackgroundMcCauley, C., McKenna, H., Keeney, S., & McLaughlin, D. (2017) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.13314 · Cited by 16
Incorporating a Public Transit Equity Lens in Evacuation Planning
Wambura, V., & Wong, S. D. (2024) · Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · doi:10.1177/03611981241245990 · Cited by 16
Ahmed, C. V., Weissinger, G., Teitelman, A. M., Dlamini, N. S., Dlamini, N. P., Dlamini, T. C., Nkambule, A., Nkambule, S., Brawner, B. M., & Calnan, M. (2021) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106309 · Cited by 16
Preclinical Students’ Views on Medical Ethics Education: A Focus Group Study in Turkey
Bilgin, A. C., Tımbıl, S., Güvercin, C. H., Özan, S., & Şemin, S. (2018) · Acta bioethica · doi:10.4067/s1726-569x2018000100105 · Cited by 16
“In the literature, there are studies in which 2 to 4 focus group sessions were held(26,49-52).”
BackgroundChan, K. W., Lee, P. W., Leung, C. P. S., Chan, G. C. W., Yiu, W. H., Cheung, H. M., Ли, Б., Lok, S. W. Y., Li, H., Xue, R., et al. (2020) · BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies · doi:10.1186/s12906-020-02994-5 · Cited by 16
“Both CM and ConM physicians of different specialties proposed pragmatic trial as an agreeable solution which aligned with the trend of establishing real-world comparisons lately [19, 43, 50].”
BackgroundResultCoutu, M., Durand, M., Côté, D., Tremblay, D., Sylvain, C., Gouin, M.-M., Bilodeau, K., Nastasia, I., & Paquette, M.-A. (2021) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-020-09953-4 · Cited by 16
“As recommended by Carlsen and Glenton [51], four focus groups were held, specifically, one homogenous group and three heterogenous groups.”
BackgroundKelling, K., & Tham, S. M. (2021) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2021.1875941 · Cited by 16
“In addition, saturation point can be reached from between two and five focus groups if reporting is not inconsistent and poor (Carlsen and Glenton 2011).”
BackgroundChapman‐Hilliard, C., & Beasley, S. T. (2018) · Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development · doi:10.1002/jmcd.12097 · Cited by 16
McKelvin, R., & McKelvin, G. (2020) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2020.102717 · Cited by 15
van der Stap, L., de Heij, A. H., van der Heide, A., Reyners, A. K. L., & van der Linden, Y. M. (2022) · Palliative & Supportive Care · doi:10.1017/s147895152200133x · Cited by 15
“Focusgroupmeetingsinvolvedaminimumof6andamaximum of12participants(CarlsenandGlenton2011).”
Boelsen‐Robinson, T., Thow, A. M., Lee, N., Gill, T. P., & Colagiuri, S. (2022) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14479-w · Cited by 15
The role of small- and medium-sized practices in the sustainable transition of SMEs
Martínez, E. O., Marín‐Hernández, S., & Thompson, P. (2023) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-023-03507-3 · Cited by 24
“Furthermore, we provide details about the sample size and group size and describe the methodological details, another common problem found with focus groups (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011; O.Nyumba et al., 2018).”
Madonsela, B. S., Machete, M., & Shale, K. (2024) · Waste · doi:10.3390/waste2030017 · Cited by 19
“This is mostly because focus group discussions inspire interaction between participants rather than between the researcher and the participant, as observed in interviews [55].”
BackgroundCharumbira, M. Y., Kaseke, F., Conradie, T., Berner, K., & Louw, Q. A. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11748-9 · Cited by 17
“However, the data from the small focus groups were considered in this paper because the groups consisted of experienced participants and facilitated better understanding of the issues raised [35].”
BackgroundNewton, P. D., & Smith, D. M. (2017) · Child Care Health and Development · doi:10.1111/cch.12453 · Cited by 15
“A systematic review of focus group-based studies has © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development found that this usually occurs at around the fifth focus group (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
Smith, S. A., Whitehead, M. S., Sheats, J. Q., Fontenot, B., Alema‐Mensah, E., & Ansa, B. E. (2016) · Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association · doi:10.21633/jgpha.6.103 · Cited by 15
“Sample size was determined based on the principle of saturation, which suggests that, with as few as four discussions, no additional information will be obtained (Carlsen and Glenton, 2011).”
BackgroundMotivators for physical activity in patients with minor stroke: a qualitative study
Krawcyk, R. S., Christoffersen, L. C., Danielsen, A. K., & Kruuse, C. R. (2022) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2022.2032409 · Cited by 14
Smith, R., Methven, L., Clegg, M., Geny, A., Ueland, Ø., Grini, I. S., Rognså, G. H., Maître, I., Brasse, C., Wymelbeke-Delannoy, V. V., et al. (2024) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107319 · Cited by 14
“Two to five groups per category of participant have been found to be adequate in reaching a point of data saturation, the point after which findings continue to be replicated across the groups and no new information is retrieved (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
Going virtual: adapting in-person interactive focus groups to the online environment
Menary, J., Stetkiewicz, S., Nair, A., Jorasch, P., Nanda, A. K., Guichaoua, A., Rufino, M. C., Fischer, A. R. H., & Davies, J. A. C. (2021) · Emerald Open Research · doi:10.35241/emeraldopenres.14163.2 · Cited by 14
Cragun, D. L., DeBate, R. D., Severson, H. H., Shaw, T., Christiansen, S., Koerber, A., Tomar, S. L., Brown, K. M., Tedesco, L. A., & Hendricson, W. D. (2012) · Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2012.76.5.tb05293.x · Cited by 14
“Bringing Life to Learning”: A Study of Active Learning in Hospitality Education
Chau, S., & Cheung, C. (2017) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-017-0333-6 · Cited by 15
Sukeri, S., Idris, Z., Mohammad, W. M. Z. W., Shafei, M. N., Idris, N., Hamat, R. A., Jamaluddin, T. Z. M. T., Osman, M. B., Wahab, Z. A., & Daud, A. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200871 · Cited by 15
McHenry, M., Apondi, E., McAteer, C., Nyandiko, W., Fischer, L. J., Ombitsa, A. R., Aluoch, J., Scanlon, M. L., & Vreeman, R. (2018) · African journal of AIDS research : AJAR · doi:10.2989/16085906.2018.1509101 · Cited by 13
“A minimum of 5 adolescent participants per clinic site were targeted for recruitment, as fewer participants may negatively impact the group dynamics required to elicit collective viewpoints (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
Shee, A. W., Donaldson, A., Clapham, R. P., Aitken, J. C., Ananthapavan, J., Ugalde, A., Versace, V. L., & Namara, K. M. (2024) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-024-01163-1 · Cited by 16
Li, E., Lounsbury, O., Clarke, J., Ashrafian, H., Darzi, A. W., & Neves, A. L. (2024) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02789-5 · Cited by 13
“Participants were recruited using convenience sampling with the aim of creating four to five focus groups [20–24].”
“Hedge Your Bets”: Technology’s Role in Young Gay Men’s Relationship Challenges
McKie, R. M., Milhausen, R., & Lachowsky, N. (2017) · Journal of Homosexuality · doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1172883 · Cited by 8
“To allow for in-depth discussion of each topic, groups were kept relatively small (three to seven participants; Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
BackgroundCommunity Recommendations for Sustainable Scientific Software
Downs, R. R., Lenhardt, W. C., Robinson, E., Davis, E., & Weber, N. (2015) · Journal of Open Research Software · doi:10.5334/jors.bt · Cited by 13
“Focus groups are valuable for obtaining empirical observations on various topics, including complex issues, such as software engineering [13] and health science research [14].”
BackgroundRetirement Policies and Support for Emergency Service Personnel: The Transition to Retirement
Bracken-Scally, M., McGilloway, S., & Mitchell, J. T. (2016) · Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · doi:10.1017/s0714980816000210 · Cited by 13
Information Management in New Motherhood
Barkin, J. L., & Jani, S. (2016) · Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association · doi:10.1177/1078390316659697 · Cited by 13
“The number of participants and of focus groups were determined (a) using the guideline of a “minimum of 4 and a maximum of 12” participants per group (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011) and (b) by considering the project budget.”
MethodStefano, L. D., Hernández-Mora, N., Iglesias, A., & Sánchez, B. (2016) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.042 · Cited by 13
Gouin, M.-M., Coutu, M., & Durand, M. (2017) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1400592 · Cited by 13
“Saturation was deemed to have been reached when no new information emerged during the analysis of a new case [54].”
BackgroundForsythe, L. P., Frank, L. B., Hemphill, R. C., Tafari, A. T., Szydlowski, V., Lauer, M. S., Goertz, C., & Clauser, S. B. (2018) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.03.018 · Cited by 12
“Given the purpose of these groups and practical guidelines for determining the appropriate number of groups [22], two groups were conducted for each category of reviewers, with a goal of 5 to 10 participants each to facilitate group interaction.”
Stängle, S., & Fringer, A. (2021) · Annals of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.21037/apm-20-1339 · Cited by 12
“We performed five focus groups (50), starting with an open question, in which participants were asked to talk freely about their attitudes, experiences and stances regarding voluntary stopping of eating and drinking.”
BackgroundIn Search of the Older Worker: Framing Job Requirements in Recruitment Advertisements
van Selm, M., & van den Heijkant, L. (2020) · Work Aging and Retirement · doi:10.1093/workar/waaa026 · Cited by 17
“By alternating the conduct of inter-views with analyzing the interview materials, we reached saturation on the main themes described, meaning that at this point, new data from the interviews did not add new insights to the analysis (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011; Guest et al., 2006).”
Perceptions of working with chronic knee pain: A qualitative study
Agaliotis, M., Mackey, M., Jan, S., & Fransen, M. (2018) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-182817 · Cited by 12
“4participants pergroup,rangingfrom1to96,withamedianof 5[36].”
CohenMiller, A., Durrani, N., Kataeva, Z., & Makhmetova, Z. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221076928 · Cited by 12
“Often six to twelve people are included in focus groups (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011; Vaughn et al., 1996), although there are also benefits of smaller groups of two (Toner, 2009) and groups of over 20 (Lobe et al., 2020).”
Backgroundvan den Burg, E. L., Schoonakker, M. P., Korpershoek, B., Sommeling, L. E., Sturm, C. A., Lamb, H. J., Pijl, H., Numans, M. E., Adriaanse, M. A., & van Peet, P. G. (2024) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02405-5 · Cited by 15
“As focus groups had to be conducted online, we limited each group to a maximum of four participants, which is a smaller number of participants than is used in traditional face-to-face settings [36].”
BackgroundRee, E., Harris, A., Indahl, A., Tveito, T. H., & Malterud, K. (2014) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494814554029 · Cited by 12
“A common recommendation is five to eight participants in each focus group [18].”
BackgroundCarlsen, B., & Glenton, C. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-134 · Cited by 14
“As Morgan and others have repeatedly pointed out, assertions about how focus groups work best and their limitations are usually based on intuition and personal experience rather than empirical evidence [3,10,15,18-20].”
BackgroundSelf-citationDoede, M., KAUFFMAN, K. S., Diaz‐Abad, M., Scharf, S. M., Bell-Farrell, W., Rogers, V. E., & Geiger-Brown, J. M. (2014) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s71666 · Cited by 12
“In addition, although the results and discussion are based on only three focus groups, data saturation was reached by the third in that all three focus group participants described similar difficulties and situations.(21) A limitation of this study, as with all qualitative studies, is that the findings may not be gene…”
Perceptions of Supervision in an Outpatient Psychiatry Clinic
Newman, M., Ravindranath, D., Figueroa, S. R., & Jibson, M. D. (2014) · Academic Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s40596-014-0191-y · Cited by 12
“The size of each focus group is within qualitative research guidelines of 4 to 12 participants per group [3].”
BackgroundOsilla, K. C., Kulesza, M., & Miranda, J. M. (2017) · Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07347324.2017.1288484 · Cited by 12
“The sample size is appropriate for collecting in-depth feedback from potential users about the acceptability of the intervention (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
BackgroundIn-house, university-based work experience vs off-campus work experience
Forsyth, J. J., & Cowap, L. (2017) · Higher Education Skills and Work-based Learning · doi:10.1108/heswbl-11-2015-0054 · Cited by 12
Do forest decision-makers in Southeastern Norway adapt forest management to climate change?
Heltorp, K. M. A., Kangas, A. S., & Hoen, H. F. (2017) · Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1080/02827581.2017.1362463 · Cited by 12
“By conducting a large number of focus group interviews (N = 10; Bryman 2001), which we believe strengthens the credibility of our results, we reduced the possibility that our results would be dramatically affected by a single focus group or methodological choices (Carlsen and Glenton 2011).”
ResultMulti-Stakeholder Informed Guidelines for Direct Admission of Children to Hospital
Leyenaar, J. K., Shevenell, M. D., Rizzo, P. A., Hill, V. L., & Lindenauer, P. K. (2018) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.007 · Cited by 12
“Recommended time for the next medications or treatments (11) Current neurologic status/presence of any mental status changes (12) Labs performed during the current illness (13) Focused past medical and surgical history (14) Contact number for the referring provider (15) Chronic conditions and technology dependence, if…”
Citizen science for Saskatchewan lakes: a pilot project
Bos, J. S., Nanayakkara, L., Hurlbert, M. A., & Finlay, K. P. (2019) · Lake and Reservoir Management · doi:10.1080/10402381.2018.1538172 · Cited by 12
“This is a common size for a focus group to allow for sufficient data collection while providing a comfortable atmosphere for discussion (Carlsen and Glenton 2011).”
BackgroundEnglish Communication Needs of Engineering Students
Poedjiastutie, D. (2019) · International Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20190702.13 · Cited by 12
“Saturation point is a clear indication of the end of data collection [33].”
BackgroundVillalobos, A. V. K., Davis, C. R., Turner, M. M., Long, S. A., Hull, S. J., & Lapinski, M. K. (2021) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/10901981211014445 · Cited by 12
“The sample size was expected to be sufficient to approach saturation of meaningful information related to the research questions (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011; Guest et al., 2017).”
BackgroundUsing Symbols and Shapes for Analysis in Small Focus Group Research
Omojola, O. (2016) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2388 · Cited by 12
“Inadequate design and haphazard reporting are two of Krueger’s (1993) worries, corroborated by Carlsen and Glenton (2011).”
BackgroundDanilovich, M., Díaz, L., Saberbein, G., Healey, W. E., Huber, G. M., & Corcos, D. M. (2017) · Home Health Care Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01621424.2017.1381869 · Cited by 12
“We selected a sample size of five HCA-client dyads (10 total participants) to be within size recommendations for focus groups (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011) and sized to facilitate completion of the working tasks associated with our stakeholder group.”
MethodUnderstanding medication safety and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: a patient perspective
Hernandez, A. V. S., Deeks, L. S., & Shield, A. (2020) · International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · doi:10.1007/s11096-020-01123-z · Cited by 11
“This pragmatic approach allowed for an emphasis on participant experience, rather than the view of the researcher, and enabled participants to freely express their subjective experiences and attitudes towards medication safety [13].”
BackgroundBRAITHWAITE, F., Arnold, J. B., Davis, A., Gwilt, I., MacIntyre, E., Morris, S., James, K. R., Lee, K., Marshall, H., Ninnes, P., et al. (2023) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2023.03.004 · Cited by 14
Yi, Y., Lee, Y., Kang, S., Kwon, Y. H., Seo, Y. M., Baek, J. Y., Jang, I., Lee, E., Koh, Y., Jung, H., et al. (2023) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s409348 · Cited by 11
“Six to nine participants were included in each focus group, in accordance with the recommended size for focus group interviews.(23,24) Data collection and analysis followed the Consolidated Criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines.”
MethodBlock, H., Bellon, M., Hunter, S. C., & George, S. (2023) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-10279-z · Cited by 11
“Each focus group consisted of 6–9 participants, which reflects recommended guidance on focus group sizes commonly consisting of 4–12 participants per group [53].”
BackgroundSheel, H., Suárez, L., & Marsh, N. V. (2023) · Pediatric Reports · doi:10.3390/pediatric15040067 · Cited by 11
“The sample size for the current study was adequate for a pilot study since studies have concluded that data must be collected with purposive sampling until saturation is reached [46,47].”
BackgroundUhawenimana, T. C., Muganwa, K., Uwimana, M. C., Musabwasoni, M. G. S., Tengera, O., Bahumura, J., Mukashyaka, J., Mukakamanzi, J., Habyarimana, E., Ngerageze, I., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301248 · Cited by 11
“…constraints such as financial resources, it is recommended that conducting six focus groups with 60 female students and an additional six focus groups with 60 male students would likely capture over 95% of the necessary themes derived from the insights of participating adolescents [26, 27].”
BackgroundRačić, M., Pekez-Pavliško, T., & Joković, S. (2017) · The International Journal of Health Planning and Management · doi:10.1002/hpm.2470 · Cited by 11
Virk, A., Jalloh, M. B., Koedoyoma, S., Smalle, I., Bolton, W. S., Scott, J. A., Brown, J. M., Jayne, D. G., Ensor, T., & King, R. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042402 · Cited by 11
Gray, G., Schalk, A. E., Rooney, P., & Lang, C. (2021) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3448139.3448162 · Cited by 11
“Each focus group had between 4 and 12 participants, to maximize the opportunity for all participants to share their thoughts and perspectives [4].”
BackgroundTeng, B., Rosbergen, I. C. M., Gomersall, S. R., Hatton, A. L., & Brauer, S. (2021) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1938705 · Cited by 12
Mistler, C. B., Idiong, C. I., & Copenhaver, M. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.825988 · Cited by 11
Lifestyle behaviours of Lebanese-Australians: Cross-sectional findings from The 45 and Up Study
Masri, A. E., Kolt, G. S., Astell‐Burt, T., & George, E. S. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181217 · Cited by 13
der Elst, K. V., Bremander, A., Groef, A. D., Larsson, I., Mathijssen, E. G. E., Vriezekolk, J. E., Westhovens, R., & van Eijk‐Hustings, Y. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023606 · Cited by 11
Lyon, L., Jeng, W., & Mattern, E. (2020) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100999 · Cited by 13
Traynor, M. P., Moreo, A. P., Cain, L., Burke, R. M., & Barry‐Ryan, C. (2020) · Journal of Culinary Science & Technology · doi:10.1080/15428052.2020.1732253 · Cited by 11
“Previous research has demonstrated that groups, consisting of three or more people, are beneficial for generating�an open dialogue that is comfortable for the participants and meaningfully varied (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
BackgroundAinuddin, H. A., Romli, M. H., Hamid, T. A., Salim, M. S., & Mackenzie, L. A. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.611814 · Cited by 11
“Hence, this study had a optimal sample size for a qualitative study (64).”
BackgroundGusto, C., Silvert, C. J., Warner, L. A. S., Diaz, J., & Mallinger, R. E. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4230171 · Cited by 11
Edwards, D. J., Rainey, E., Boukouvala, V., Wells, Y., Bennett, P., Tree, J., & Kemp, A. H. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029411 · Cited by 9
“More participants may be recruited in additional focus groups and/or interviews until saturation is met in line with established recommendations for focus group thematic analysis.(72)”
Backgroundvan den Bulck, A. O. E., de Korte, M. H., Metzelthin, S. F., Elissen, A. M. J., Everink, I. H. J., Ruwaard, D., & Mikkers, M. C. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19042252 · Cited by 10
“The aim was to recruit at least four participants per focus group with a maximum of 12 participants [14], which implied a maximum of three participants per organization.”
BackgroundNdekugri, I., Ankrah, N. A., & Adaku, E. (2023) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-12073 · Cited by 10
Budman, J. R., & Maeir, A. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18126-4 · Cited by 10
“Sample size determination, including number of focus groups and participants, was based on relevant intervention development literature [23] and established guidelines for focus group methodology [24].”
BackgroundMethodClark, M., Lewis, A., Bradshaw, S., & Bradbury‐Jones, C. (2018) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5642-z · Cited by 10
Kwan, Y. H., Fong, W. W. S., Leung, Y. Y., Tan, V. I. C., Yap, A. F., Phang, J. K., Lui, N. L., Yoon, S., Malhotra, R., Thumboo, J., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1111/1756-185x.13413 · Cited by 10
“Number of focus groups 9 6 3 Current age, median (range), y 43 (21-77) 41 (21-73) 51 (21-77) Gender, male, n (%) 28 (54.”
Parizi, A. S., Krabbe, P. F. M., Buskens, E., van der Bij, W., Blokzijl, H., Hanewinkel, V. C., Annema, C., Bakker, S. J. L., & Vermeulen, K. M. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.017 · Cited by 10
Fox, M. T., Sidani, S., Butler, J. I., Skinner, M. W., Macdonald, M., Durocher, E., Hunter, K. F., Wagg, A., Weeks, L. E., MacLeod, A., et al. (2021) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-021-00179-w · Cited by 10
Hrynyschyn, R., Prediger, C., Lyk, P., Majgaard, G., Helmer, S. M., & Stock, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1054015 · Cited by 10
“Although the size of the study population is not critical in qualitative studies (44), data saturation was not aimed for and can be seen as a limitation.”
BackgroundAn Integrative Qualitative Framework: Improving Research Through Strategic Mapping
Coker, D. C. (2023) · International Research in Education · doi:10.5296/ire.v11i1.20921 · Cited by 18
Lid, T. G., Oppedal, K., Pedersen, B., & Malterud, K. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494812456636 · Cited by 9
“Recommendations for sample size in focus group interviews diverge, with two to five groups being commonly conducted [11].”
BackgroundAssessment of Consumer Perceptions on the Use of Antimicrobials in Production Animals in Chile
Cornejo, J., Cabezón, C., Martín, B. S., & Lapierre, L. (2018) · Journal of Food Protection · doi:10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-17-463 · Cited by 10
Outcomes in patients with chronic uveitis: which factors matter to patients? A qualitative study
Stolk‐Vos, A. C., Kasigar, H., Nijmeijer, K. J., Missotten, T., Busschbach, J. J. V., van de Klundert, J. J., & Kranenburg, L. W. (2020) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-020-01388-y · Cited by 10
“Two focus groups, one with 9 and one with 11 participants, were conducted to draw out different perspectives and generate discussion, thereby allowing each person to talk in detail about their perspective [16].”
BackgroundReeder, B., Makic, M. B. F., Morrow, C. D., Ouellet, J., Sutcliffe, B., Rodrick, D., Gritz, M., & Wald, H. L. (2020) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000668 · Cited by 10
Sexual Activity and Depressive Symptoms in Later Life: Insights from Jamaica
Willie-Tyndale, D., Donaldson‐Davis, K., Ashby-Mitchell, K., Davis, J. M., Aiken, W. D., & Eldemire‐Shearer, D. (2021) · Clinical Gerontologist · doi:10.1080/07317115.2021.1882636 · Cited by 10
“For the qualitative arm we targeted 7–12 persons per group in keeping with guidelines regarding focus group composition (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).”
MethodKirzner, R. S., Robbins, I., Privitello, M., & Miserandino, M. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10423-6 · Cited by 10
“This number of participants in each group is within the typical range for focus groups [23].”
BackgroundAmbler, G. K., Bosanquet, D. C., Brookes‐Howell, L., Thomas‐Jones, E., Waldron, C.-A., Edwards, A., & Twine, C. P. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2358-9 · Cited by 10
“This is based on guidance on focus groups in terms of numbers of groups and numbers of participants [12].”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C.
- Affiliations
- SINTEF (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Carlsen, Benedicte
- ORCID
- Glenton, Claire
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2011-03-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-26
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3061958
- OpenAlex
- W2013335946
- Cited by
- 670
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 80.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bergen Open Research Archive (BORA) (University of Bergen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Universitetet i Bergen
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- focus groups, sample size reporting, data saturation, grounded theory, qualitative research methodology, reporting guidelines, health journals, methodological quality
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Research Design, Focus Groups, Sample Size, PubMed
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
