Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 15, 2026.

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

Konstantina Vasileiou, Julie Barnett, Susan Thorpe and 1 more

BMC Medical Research Methodology · 2018

doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7

Abstract

Background. Choosing 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.

Methods. A 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.

Results. Our 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.

Conclusions. We 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.

Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References 71

  1. 1.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  17. 17.
    What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies · 2011
    No notice
  18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  42. 42.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  43. 43.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  58. 58.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  59. 59.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  61. 61.
    Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization · 2017
    No notice
  62. 62.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data · 2018
    No notice
  64. 64.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  66. 66.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  67. 67.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  68. 68.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  69. 69.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  70. 70.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  71. 71.
    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement · 2009
    No notice

Cited by papers we hold 9

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.