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.

Determination of Validity, Reliability and Sample Size in Qualitative Studies

Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies

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

Dilemmas in qualitative health research

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

A choir or cacophony? Sample sizes and quality of conveying participants’ voices in phenomenological research

Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies

Sample size determination: A practical guide for health researchers

Sample Size for Interview in Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A Guide to Novice Researchers

Calculating the Sample Size in Quantitative Studies

Qualitative research Sampling

A Practical Guide to Improve Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research for Novices

Methods and Rule-of-Thumbs in The Determination of Minimum Sample Size When Appling Structural Equation Modelling: A Review

A Review of Qualitative Data Analysis Practices in Health Education and Health Behavior Research

Data Analysis Methods for Qualitative Research: Managing the Challenges of Coding, Interrater Reliability, and Thematic Analysis

Determining Sample Size in Binary Measurement System

Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Information From Interviews

[Reconsidering evaluation criteria regarding health care research: toward an integrative framework of quantitative and qualitative criteria]

Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies

Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size