Department of Preventive Medicine & Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America.
Institute for Social Research, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona/University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 20;13(6):e0198606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198606. eCollection 2018.
Sample size determination for open-ended questions or qualitative interviews relies primarily on custom and finding the point where little new information is obtained (thematic saturation). Here, we propose and test a refined definition of saturation as obtaining the most salient items in a set of qualitative interviews (where items can be material things or concepts, depending on the topic of study) rather than attempting to obtain all the items. Salient items have higher prevalence and are more culturally important. To do this, we explore saturation, salience, sample size, and domain size in 28 sets of interviews in which respondents were asked to list all the things they could think of in one of 18 topical domains. The domains-like kinds of fruits (highly bounded) and things that mothers do (unbounded)-varied greatly in size. The datasets comprise 20-99 interviews each (1,147 total interviews). When saturation was defined as the point where less than one new item per person would be expected, the median sample size for reaching saturation was 75 (range = 15-194). Thematic saturation was, as expected, related to domain size. It was also related to the amount of information contributed by each respondent but, unexpectedly, was reached more quickly when respondents contributed less information. In contrast, a greater amount of information per person increased the retrieval of salient items. Even small samples (n = 10) produced 95% of the most salient ideas with exhaustive listing, but only 53% of those items were captured with limited responses per person (three). For most domains, item salience appeared to be a more useful concept for thinking about sample size adequacy than finding the point of thematic saturation. Thus, we advance the concept of saturation in salience and emphasize probing to increase the amount of information collected per respondent to increase sample efficiency.
开放式问题或定性访谈的样本量主要取决于自定义和达到几乎无法获得新信息的程度(主题饱和)。在这里,我们提出并测试了一个更精细的饱和定义,即从一组定性访谈中获得最显著的项目(项目可以是实物或概念,具体取决于研究主题),而不是试图获得所有项目。显著项目具有更高的普遍性和更重要的文化意义。为此,我们在 28 组访谈中探讨了饱和、显著、样本量和领域大小,要求受访者在 18 个主题领域中的一个领域列出他们能想到的所有事物。这些领域的范围从非常有限(如水果种类)到非常广泛(如母亲的行为),差异很大。每个数据集包含 20-99 次访谈(总共 1147 次访谈)。当饱和定义为预计每人不到一个新项时,达到饱和的中位数样本量为 75(范围为 15-194)。主题饱和与领域大小如预期相关。它也与每个受访者提供的信息量有关,但出人意料的是,当受访者提供的信息量较少时,它更快地达到。相比之下,每个人提供更多的信息会增加显著项目的检索。即使是小样本(n=10),通过详尽的列举也可以产生 95%的最显著想法,但只有 53%的这些项目可以通过每人有限的回答(三个)来捕捉。对于大多数领域,与找到主题饱和点相比,项目显著度似乎是一个更有用的概念,可以用来考虑样本量是否足够。因此,我们提出了显著饱和的概念,并强调通过深入探究来增加每个受访者的信息量,以提高样本效率。