Sample size in qualitative research Creswell PDF

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

1. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. National Centre for Social Research 2003 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/166_policy_hub_a_quality_framework.pdf Accessed 11 May 2018.

2. Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research Qual Rep. 2015;20(9):1408–16.

   Google Scholar 

3. Robinson OC. Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical guide. Qual Res Psychol. 2014;11(1):25–41.

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(2):179–83.

   CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

5. Sandelowski M. One is the liveliest number: the case orientation of qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1996;19(6):525–9.

   CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

6. Luborsky MR, Rubinstein RL. Sampling in qualitative research: rationale, issues. and methods Res Aging. 1995;17(1):89–113.

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13(6):522–6.

   CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.

   Google Scholar 

9. van Rijnsoever FJ. (I Can’t get no) saturation: a simulation and guidelines for sample sizes in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181689.

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(2):147–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Morse JM. Determining sample size. Qual Health Res. 2000;10(1):3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

12. Gergen KJ, Josselson R, Freeman M. The promises of qualitative inquiry. Am Psychol. 2015;70(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

13. Borsci S, Macredie RD, Barnett J, Martin J, Kuljis J, Young T. Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: a grounded procedure for interaction evaluation. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2013;20(5):29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. Borsci S, Macredie RD, Martin JL, Young T. How many testers are needed to assure the usability of medical devices? Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11(5):513–25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

15. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

16. Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):269–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

17. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage; 1985.

    Book  Google Scholar 

18. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2015;26:1753–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Nelson J. Using conceptual depth criteria: addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2017;17(5):554–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

20. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Caine K. Local standards for sample size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2016;981–992. ACM.

22. Carlsen B, Glenton C. What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

23. Constantinou CS, Georgiou M, Perdikogianni M. A comparative method for themes saturation (CoMeTS) in qualitative interviews. Qual Res. 2017;17(5):571–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Dai NT, Free C, Gendron Y. Interview-based research in accounting 2000–2014: a review. November 2016. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2711022 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2711022. Accessed 17 May 2018.

25. Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

27. Guetterman TC. Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2015;16(2):25. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502256. Accessed 17 May 2018.

28. Hagaman AK, Wutich A. How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on guest, bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field Methods. 2017;29(1):23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(4):591–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

30. Marshall B, Cardon P, Poddar A, Fontenot R. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: a review of qualitative interviews in IS research. J Comput Inform Syst. 2013;54(1):11–22.

    Google Scholar 

31. Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual Soc Res 2010;11(3):8. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387. Accessed 17 May 2018.

32. Safman RM, Sobal J. Qualitative sample extensiveness in health education research. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(1):9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Saunders MN, Townsend K. Reporting and justifying the number of interview participants in organization and workplace research. Br J Manag. 2016;27(4):836–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Sobal J. 2001. Sample extensiveness in qualitative nutrition education research. J Nutr Educ. 2001;33(4):184–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

35. Thomson SB. 2010. Sample size and grounded theory. JOAAG. 2010;5(1). http://www.joaag.com/uploads/5_1__Research_Note_1_Thomson.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018.

36. Baker SE, Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough?: expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. 2012; http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018.

37. Ogden J, Cornwell D. The role of topic, interviewee, and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(7):1059–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

38. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

39. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Elam G. Designing and selecting samples. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage; 2003. p. 77–108.

    Google Scholar 

40. Britten N. Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311(6999):251–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

41. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

42. Fugard AJ, Potts HW. Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(6):669–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

43. Emmel N. Themes, variables, and the limits to calculating sample size in qualitative research: a response to Fugard and Potts. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(6):685–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

44. Braun V, Clarke V. (Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2016;19(6):739–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

45. Hammersley M. Sampling and thematic analysis: a response to Fugard and Potts. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(6):687–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

46. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

47. Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res. 2008;8(1):137–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

48. Morse JM. Data were saturated. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(5):587–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

49. O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

50. Manen M, Higgins I, Riet P. A conversation with max van Manen on phenomenology in its original sense. Nurs Health Sci. 2016;18(1):4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

51. Dey I. Grounding grounded theory. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

52. Hays DG, Wood C, Dahl H, Kirk-Jenkins A. Methodological rigor in journal of counseling & development qualitative research articles: a 15-year review. J Couns Dev. 2016;94(2):172–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

53. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

54. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

55. Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

56. Levitt HM, Motulsky SL, Wertz FJ, Morrow SL, Ponterotto JG. Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: promoting methodological integrity. Qual Psychol. 2017;4(1):2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

57. Morrow SL. Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):250–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

58. Barroso J, Sandelowski M. Sample reporting in qualitative studies of women with HIV infection. Field Methods. 2003;15(4):386–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

59. Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, Munthe-Kaas H, Colvin CJ, Tunçalp Ö, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

60. Onwuegbuzie AJ. Leech NL. A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual Quant. 2007;41(1):105–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

61. Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):230–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

62. Erickson F. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: Wittrock M, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan; 1986. p. 119–61.

    Google Scholar 

63. Bradbury-Jones C, Taylor J, Herber O. How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: development of a new typology. Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

64. Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ. 2016;i563:352.

    Google Scholar 

Page 2

• Policies
• Accessibility
• Press center

• Support and Contact
• Leave feedback
• Careers

Follow BMC

• BMC Twitter page
• BMC Facebook page
• BMC Weibo page