↓ Skip to main content

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
447 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
746 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-26
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benedicte Carlsen, Claire Glenton

Abstract

Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 746 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 729 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 155 21%
Student > Master 122 16%
Researcher 84 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 62 8%
Student > Bachelor 51 7%
Other 135 18%
Unknown 137 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 14%
Social Sciences 103 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 94 13%
Psychology 89 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 5%
Other 137 18%
Unknown 174 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,981,956
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,031
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,968
of 109,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.