Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Department of Anthropology and Global Health Program, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive 0532, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;292:114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523. Epub 2021 Nov 2.
OBJECTIVE: To review empirical studies that assess saturation in qualitative research in order to identify sample sizes for saturation, strategies used to assess saturation, and guidance we can draw from these studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of four databases to identify studies empirically assessing sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research, supplemented by searching citing articles and reference lists. RESULTS: We identified 23 articles that used empirical data (n = 17) or statistical modeling (n = 6) to assess saturation. Studies using empirical data reached saturation within a narrow range of interviews (9-17) or focus group discussions (4-8), particularly those with relatively homogenous study populations and narrowly defined objectives. Most studies had a relatively homogenous study population and assessed code saturation; the few outliers (e.g., multi-country research, meta-themes, "code meaning" saturation) needed larger samples for saturation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite varied research topics and approaches to assessing saturation, studies converged on a relatively consistent sample size for saturation for commonly used qualitative research methods. However, these findings apply to certain types of studies (e.g., those with homogenous study populations). These results provide strong empirical guidance on effective sample sizes for qualitative research, which can be used in conjunction with the characteristics of individual studies to estimate an appropriate sample size prior to data collection. This synthesis also provides an important resource for researchers, academic journals, journal reviewers, ethical review boards, and funding agencies to facilitate greater transparency in justifying and reporting sample sizes in qualitative research. Future empirical research is needed to explore how various parameters affect sample sizes for saturation.
目的:综述评估定性研究饱和度的实证研究,以确定饱和度的样本量、评估饱和度所采用的策略,以及从这些研究中可以得到哪些启示。
方法:我们对四个数据库进行了系统性回顾,以确定评估定性研究饱和度的样本量的实证研究,同时还检索了引用文献和参考文献列表。
结果:我们共确定了 23 篇文章,这些文章使用了实证数据(n=17)或统计模型(n=6)来评估饱和度。使用实证数据的研究在访谈(9-17 次)或焦点小组讨论(4-8 次)中达到饱和度,特别是那些研究人群相对同质且目标定义较窄的研究。大多数研究的研究人群相对同质,评估了代码饱和度;少数例外(例如,多国研究、元主题、“代码含义”饱和度)需要更大的样本量才能达到饱和度。
结论:尽管研究主题和评估饱和度的方法各不相同,但研究结果在常用定性研究方法的饱和度上趋于一致的样本量。然而,这些发现仅适用于某些类型的研究(例如,研究人群同质的研究)。这些结果为定性研究提供了有效样本量的强有力的实证指导,可与个别研究的特点结合使用,在数据收集前估计适当的样本量。本综述还为研究人员、学术期刊、期刊审稿人、伦理审查委员会和资助机构提供了一个重要的资源,以促进在定性研究中更明确地说明和报告样本量。需要进一步的实证研究来探讨各种参数如何影响饱和度的样本量。
Qual Health Res. 2019-1-10
Qual Health Res. 2017-3
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011-3-11
Early Hum Dev. 2020-11
Eur J Gen Pract. 2017-12-4
Psychooncology. 2025-9