CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 670Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDelphi Technique in Research

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 access
Carlsen, Benedicte, Glenton, Claire·2011·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-26PMC PMC3061958
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-11-26

Cites

72 of 72 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 72 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 669

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C.
Affiliations
SINTEF (NO)
Corresponding author
Carlsen, Benedicte
ORCID
Glenton, Claire
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-03-11
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
26-26
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-11-26
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
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