↓ 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
397 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
666 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 666 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 649 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 148 22%
Student > Master 108 16%
Researcher 81 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 59 9%
Student > Bachelor 45 7%
Other 124 19%
Unknown 101 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 16%
Social Sciences 94 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 87 13%
Psychology 80 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 6%
Other 123 18%
Unknown 140 21%

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
#6,816,122
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,011
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,385
of 108,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 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 2,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. 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 108,326 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 68% of its contemporaries.