Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 20;13(6):e0198606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198606. eCollection 2018.

Open-ended interview questions and saturation.

Author information

1
Department of Preventive Medicine & Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America.
2
Institute for Social Research, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona/University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
3
Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
4
Department of Management, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
5
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.

Abstract

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.

PMID:
29924873
PMCID:
PMC6010234
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0198606
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center