Cited by 2,929Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research

Open access
Guest, Greg, Namey, Emily, Chen, Mario·2020·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Data saturation is the most commonly employed concept for estimating sample sizes in qualitative research. Over the past 20 years, scholars using both empirical research and mathematical/statistical models have made significant contributions to the question: How many qualitative interviews are enough? This body of work has advanced the evidence base for sample size estimation in qualitative inquiry during the design phase of a study, prior to data collection, but it does not provide qualitative researchers with a simple and reliable way to determine the adequacy of sample sizes during and/or after data collection. Using the principle of saturation as a foundation, we describe and validate a simple-to-apply method for assessing and reporting on saturation in the context of inductive thematic analyses. Following a review of the empirical research on data saturation and sample size estimation in qualitative research, we propose an alternative way to evaluate saturation that overcomes the shortcomings and challenges associated with existing methods identified in our review. Our approach includes three primary elements in its calculation and assessment: Base Size, Run Length, and New Information Threshold. We additionally propose a more flexible approach to reporting saturation. To validate our method, we use a bootstrapping technique on three existing thematically coded qualitative datasets generated from in-depth interviews. Results from this analysis indicate the method we propose to assess and report on saturation is feasible and congruent with findings from earlier studies.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0232076

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The planned sample sizes are based on empirical results that show that most new information in a data set is obtained in the first five to six interviews, that 92% data saturation occurs after 10 interviews, and that negligible new information is obtained after 20 interviews at the latest.

    “The planned sample sizes are based on empirical results that show that most new information in a data set is obtained in the first five to six interviews, that 92 % data saturation occurs after 10 interviews and negligible new information is obtained after 20 interviews at the latest (Guest et al., 2020).”

    From TONI - One for all? Participatory development of a transtheoretic and transdiagnostic online intervention for blended care (2024) · cites this paper as Guest et al., 2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Saturation occurred when incoming data points contained little to no new useful information in relation to the study objectives.

    “Saturation occurred when incoming data points contained little to no new useful information in relation to the study objectives (Guest et al., 2020).”

    From Ethical Veganism as the Future of Tourist Consumption (2026) · cites this paper as Guest et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [14]Cheek J. An untold story: doing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000 p. 401– 20.
  2. [20]Galvin R. How many interviews are enough? Do qualitative interviews in building energy consumption research produce reliable knowledge?. Journal of Building Engineering. 2015; 1: 2– 12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M.
Affiliations
Family Health International 360 (US)
Corresponding author
Namey, Emily
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-05-05
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
e0232076
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3023639742
Cited by
2,929
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 755 · 2025: 691 · 2024: 555 · 2023: 427 · 2022: 325 · 2021: 152 · 2020: 23 · 2017: 1
FWCI
351.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
data saturation, sample size determination, qualitative research, base size, run length, bootstrapping validation, in-depth interviews
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, 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