For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
88
views
11
references
 Top references
cited by
264
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      30
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research

      Author(s): 1 , 2 , 1
      Publication date Created:
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Qualitative Health Research
      Publisher: SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Saturation is commonly used to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet there is little guidance on what influences saturation. We aimed to assess saturation and identify parameters to estimate sample sizes for focus group studies in advance of data collection. We used two approaches to assess saturation in data from 10 focus group discussions. Four focus groups were sufficient to identify a range of new issues (code saturation), but more groups were needed to fully understand these issues (meaning saturation). Group stratification influenced meaning saturation, whereby one focus group per stratum was needed to identify issues; two groups per stratum provided a more comprehensive understanding of issues, but more groups per stratum provided little additional benefit. We identify six parameters influencing saturation in focus group data: study purpose, type of codes, group stratification, number of groups per stratum, and type and degree of saturation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews

          Mark Mason (2010)
          A number of issues can affect sample size in qualitative research; however, the guiding principle should be the concept of saturation. This has been explored in detail by a number of authors but is still hotly debated, and some say little understood. A sample of PhD studies using qualitative approaches, and qualitative interviews as the method of data collection was taken from theses.com and contents analysed for their sample sizes. Five hundred and sixty studies were identified that fitted the inclusion criteria. Results showed that the mean sample size was 31; however, the distribution was non-random, with a statistically significant proportion of studies, presenting sample sizes that were multiples of ten. These results are discussed in relation to saturation. They suggest a pre-meditated approach that is not wholly congruent with the principles of qualitative research. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387 Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol 11, No 3 (2010): Methods for Qualitative Management Research in the Context of Social Systems Thinking
          Article 0 comments Cited 288 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

            Benedicte Carlsen, Claire Glenton (2011)
            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.
            Article 0 comments Cited 173 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research.

              Cicely Kerr, Annabel Nixon, Diane Wild (2010)
              In the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) field, strict regulatory requirements must be met for qualitative research that contributes to labeling claims for medicinal products. These requirements not only emphasize the importance of reaching saturation but also of providing documentary evidence that saturation has been reached. This paper reviews qualitative literature for useful definitions of the concept and for practical approaches for assessing saturation. The paper considers approaches in light of the rigorous regulatory requirements for PRO research that are used to support labeling claims for medicinal products and the wider requirements for flexibility and creativity in qualitative research in general. This assessment is facilitated by the use of examples from our past qualitative PRO studies. Based on conclusions from this assessment, we offer preliminary recommendations for future qualitative PRO studies for assessing and documenting saturation.
              Article 0 comments Cited 172 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Qualitative Health Research
                Abbreviated Title: Qual Health Res
                Publisher: SAGE Publications
                ISSN (Print): 1049-7323
                ISSN (Electronic): 1552-7557
                Publication date Created: April 19 2019
                Publication date Created: August 2019
                Publication date (Electronic): January 10 2019
                Publication date (Print): August 2019
                Volume: 29
                Issue: 10
                Pages: 1483-1496
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
                [2 ]University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
                Article
                DOI: 10.1177/1049732318821692
                PMC ID: 6635912
                PubMed ID: 30628545
                SO-VID: 45d34afe-3746-41f8-bfb0-79f5132ec893
                Copyright © © 2019
                License:

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content30

                See all similar

                Cited by263

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors411

                See all reference authors