Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Sep 22, 2023
Date Accepted: May 9, 2024

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Determining an Appropriate Sample Size for Qualitative Interviews to Achieve True and Near Code Saturation: Secondary Analysis of Data

Squire CM, Giombi KC, Rupert DJ, Amoozegar J, Williams P

Determining an Appropriate Sample Size for Qualitative Interviews to Achieve True and Near Code Saturation: Secondary Analysis of Data

J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e52998

DOI: 10.2196/52998

PMID: 38980711

PMCID: 11267098

Determining Appropriate Sample Size for Qualitative Interviews: Code Saturation

  • Claudia M Squire; 
  • Kristen C Giombi; 
  • Douglas J Rupert; 
  • Jacqueline Amoozegar; 
  • Peyton Williams

ABSTRACT

Background:

In-depth interviews are a common method of qualitative data collection that allows for gathering rich data on individuals’ perceptions and behaviors that would be challenging to collect with quantitative methods. Researchers typically need to make decisions on sample size a priori. Although studies have assessed when saturation has been achieved, there is no agreement on the minimum number of interviews needed to achieve saturation. Additionally, to date most research on saturation has been based on in-person data collection.

Objective:

This study aimed to identify the number of virtual interviews needed to achieve true code saturation or near code saturation.

Methods:

The analyses for this study were based on data from 5 Food and Drug Administration-funded studies conducted virtually with patients with underlying medical conditions or with healthcare providers who provide primary or specialty care to patients. We extracted code- and interview-specific data and examined the data summaries to determine when true saturation or near saturation was reached.

Results:

The sample size used in the 5 studies ranged from 30 to 70 interviews. True saturation was reached after 91% to 100% of planned interviews, whereas near saturation was reached after 33% to 60% of planned interviews (15-23 interviews). Studies that relied heavily on deductive coding and studies that had a more structured interview guide reached both true saturation and near saturation sooner.

Conclusions:

Our study provides support that near saturation may be a sufficient measure to target and that conducting additional interviews after that point may result in diminishing returns. Factors to consider in determining how many interviews to conduct include the structure and type of questions included in the interview guide, the coding structure, and the population under study. Studies with less structured interview guides, studies that rely heavily on inductive coding and analytic techniques, and studies that include populations that may be less knowledgeable about the topics discussed may require a larger sample size to reach an acceptable level of saturation.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Squire CM, Giombi KC, Rupert DJ, Amoozegar J, Williams P

Determining an Appropriate Sample Size for Qualitative Interviews to Achieve True and Near Code Saturation: Secondary Analysis of Data

J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e52998

DOI: 10.2196/52998

PMID: 38980711

PMCID: 11267098

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.