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
Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732315617444 · Cited by 12,703
“Reviews indicate that qualitative researchers demonstrate a low level of transparency regarding sample sizes and the underlying arguments for these (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011; Mason, 2010).”
BackgroundResultSample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests
Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 · Cited by 6,311
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846 · Cited by 4,776
Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316665344 · Cited by 4,597
“Furthermore, using an appropriate sample size is also an ethical issue (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011; Francis et al., 2010): qualitative samples that are larger than needed waste research funds, burden the study population, and lead to unused data, while samples that are too small may not fully capture…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialVasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young, T. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 · Cited by 3,115
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
