Abstract:BackgroundChoosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields.MethodsA systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques.ResultsOur findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms.ConclusionsWe recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.

On the Sample Size and the Response Rate

Is High Response Rate Better? Another understanding on response rates for social survey

The Sensitivity of Respondent-driven Sampling Method

Response to von Schmalensee et al.

Rejoinder to the discussion on “The central role of the identifying assumption in population size estimation”

Application of statistical analysis of sample size: How many occupant responses are required for an indoor environmental quality (IEQ) field study

Numerical Investigation on Sample Population Requirement for Mean Particle Diameter Analysis

Tips for troublesome sample-size calculation

Research Commentary - Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and the p-Value Problem.

The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?

Too Big to Fail: Larger Samples and False Discoveries

Non-response and Sample Substitution in Social Survey

Sample Size Determination for Interval Estimation of the Prevalence of a Sensitive Attribute Under Randomized Response Models

How Many Responses Do We Need? Using Generalizability Analysis to Estimate Minimum Necessary Response Rates for Online Student Evaluations

All Claims in the Original Article Hold As Stated

Discussion on the paper by Xia, Tong, Li and Zhu

Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

Statistics in Brief: The Importance of Sample Size in the Planning and Interpretation of Medical Research

On Estimation of Finite Population Proportion

Minor Issues Escalated to Critical Levels in Large Samples: A Permutation-Based Fix

Dr Zhou Replies