The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Some Issues Arising in the Systematic Analysis of Focus Group Materials
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.
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
Cited by
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Barbour, R. S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · Cited by 2,613
Superwoman Schema: African American Women’s Views on Stress, Strength, and Health
Woods-Giscombé, C. L. (2010) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732310361892 · Cited by 802
“Each group represented a case or unit of analysis (Frankland & Bloor, 1999).”
Barbour, R. S. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x · Cited by 580
Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Gwyn, R., & Grol, R. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7212.753 · Cited by 299
Woods-Giscombe, C. L., Allen, A. M., Black, A. R., Steed, T. C., Li, Y., & Lackey, C. (2019) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840.2019.1584654 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Frankland, J., & Bloor, M.
- Venue
- Developing Focus Group Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 1999
- Pages
- 144-155
- OpenAlex
- W1742996058
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.48
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Some Issues Arising in the Systematic Analysis of Focus Group Materials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781849208857.n10
- The paper
- Frankland, J., & Bloor, M. (1999). Some Issues Arising in the Systematic Analysis of Focus Group Materials. Developing Focus Group Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208857.n10
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
