多少次访谈或焦点小组讨论才足够?

Kizzy Gandy
{"title":"多少次访谈或焦点小组讨论才足够?","authors":"Kizzy Gandy","doi":"10.1177/1035719x241266964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When it comes to qualitative evaluation data, is more always better and what determines value for money? This article proposes two steps for evaluators and those responsible for procuring evaluations to answer the question ‘how many interviews or focus groups are enough?’ Step 1 is to consider the nature of the evaluation question to determine the sampling goal, importance of thematic saturation, and an appropriate sampling strategy. The article provides guidance on how many interviews and focus groups are needed to achieve different levels of thematic saturation based on empirical tests in the published literature. Step 2 is to check the skills of the evaluator, including whether they integrate behavioural science into their discussion guide and analysis to mitigate bias. This will determine – regardless of the number of interviews and focus groups – whether they will be able to generate useful insights for decision-making from the data. The article concludes that it is not sufficient to assess an evaluation plan’s value for money by sample size alone and consideration also must be given to the characteristics of the evaluation design and the skills of the evaluators undertaking the project.","PeriodicalId":508734,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"4 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How many interviews or focus groups are enough?\",\"authors\":\"Kizzy Gandy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1035719x241266964\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When it comes to qualitative evaluation data, is more always better and what determines value for money? This article proposes two steps for evaluators and those responsible for procuring evaluations to answer the question ‘how many interviews or focus groups are enough?’ Step 1 is to consider the nature of the evaluation question to determine the sampling goal, importance of thematic saturation, and an appropriate sampling strategy. The article provides guidance on how many interviews and focus groups are needed to achieve different levels of thematic saturation based on empirical tests in the published literature. Step 2 is to check the skills of the evaluator, including whether they integrate behavioural science into their discussion guide and analysis to mitigate bias. This will determine – regardless of the number of interviews and focus groups – whether they will be able to generate useful insights for decision-making from the data. The article concludes that it is not sufficient to assess an evaluation plan’s value for money by sample size alone and consideration also must be given to the characteristics of the evaluation design and the skills of the evaluators undertaking the project.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"volume\":\"4 14\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x241266964\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x241266964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在定性评估数据方面,是否越多越好?本文为评估人员和负责采购评估的人员提出了两个步骤,以回答 "多少个访谈或焦点小组才足够?第一步是考虑评估问题的性质,以确定抽样目标、主题饱和的重要性以及适当的抽样策略。文章根据已发表文献中的经验测试,就需要多少访谈和焦点小组才能达到不同程度的主题饱和度提供了指导。第二步是检查评估人员的技能,包括他们是否将行为科学纳入讨论指南和分析,以减少偏差。这将决定--无论访谈和焦点小组的数量有多少--他们是否能够从数据中得出对决策有用的见解。文章的结论是,仅凭样本数量来评估一项评估计划是否物有所值是不够的,还必须考 虑到评估设计的特点和开展项目的评估人员的技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How many interviews or focus groups are enough?
When it comes to qualitative evaluation data, is more always better and what determines value for money? This article proposes two steps for evaluators and those responsible for procuring evaluations to answer the question ‘how many interviews or focus groups are enough?’ Step 1 is to consider the nature of the evaluation question to determine the sampling goal, importance of thematic saturation, and an appropriate sampling strategy. The article provides guidance on how many interviews and focus groups are needed to achieve different levels of thematic saturation based on empirical tests in the published literature. Step 2 is to check the skills of the evaluator, including whether they integrate behavioural science into their discussion guide and analysis to mitigate bias. This will determine – regardless of the number of interviews and focus groups – whether they will be able to generate useful insights for decision-making from the data. The article concludes that it is not sufficient to assess an evaluation plan’s value for money by sample size alone and consideration also must be given to the characteristics of the evaluation design and the skills of the evaluators undertaking the project.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信