Open-ended interview questions and saturation

Susan Weller, Ben Vickers, H. Russell Bernard, Alyssa M. Blackburn, Stephen Borgatti, Clarence C. Gravlee, Jeffrey C. Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Sample size determination for open-ended questions or qualitative interviews relies primarily on custom and finding the point where little new information is obtained (thematic saturation). Here, we propose and test a refined definition of saturation as obtaining the most salient items in a set of qualitative interviews (where items can be material things or concepts, depending on the topic of study) rather than attempting to obtain all the items. Salient items have higher prevalence and are more culturally important. To do this, we explore saturation, salience, sample size, and domain size in 28 sets of interviews in which respondents were asked to list all the things they could think of in one of 18 topical domains. The domains —like kinds of fruits (highly bounded) and things that mothers do (unbounded)—varied greatly in size. The datasets comprise 20–99 interviews each (1,147 total interviews). When saturation was defined as the point where less than one new item per person would be expected, the median sample size for reaching saturation was 75 (range = 15–194). Thematic saturation was, as expected, related to domain size. It was also related to the amount of information contributed by each respondent but, unexpectedly, was reached more quickly when respondents contributed less information. In contrast, a greater amount of information per person increased the retrieval of salient items. Even small samples (n = 10) produced 95% of the most salient ideas with exhaustive listing, but only 53% of those items were captured with limited responses per person (three). For most domains, item salience appeared to be a more useful concept for thinking about sample size adequacy than finding the point of thematic saturation. Thus, we advance the concept of saturation in salience and emphasize probing to increase the amount of information collected per respondent to increase sample efficiency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0198606
JournalPLoS One
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Size determination
Fruits
interviews
Sample Size
Interviews
sampling
Fruit
Surveys and Questionnaires
fruits

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Weller, S., Vickers, B., Russell Bernard, H., Blackburn, A. M., Borgatti, S., Gravlee, C. C., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Open-ended interview questions and saturation. PLoS One, 13(6), [e0198606]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198606

Open-ended interview questions and saturation. / Weller, Susan; Vickers, Ben; Russell Bernard, H.; Blackburn, Alyssa M.; Borgatti, Stephen; Gravlee, Clarence C.; Johnson, Jeffrey C.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 13, No. 6, e0198606, 01.06.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Weller, S, Vickers, B, Russell Bernard, H, Blackburn, AM, Borgatti, S, Gravlee, CC & Johnson, JC 2018, 'Open-ended interview questions and saturation', PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 6, e0198606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198606
Weller S, Vickers B, Russell Bernard H, Blackburn AM, Borgatti S, Gravlee CC et al. Open-ended interview questions and saturation. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 1;13(6). e0198606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198606
Weller, Susan ; Vickers, Ben ; Russell Bernard, H. ; Blackburn, Alyssa M. ; Borgatti, Stephen ; Gravlee, Clarence C. ; Johnson, Jeffrey C. / Open-ended interview questions and saturation. In: PLoS One. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 6.
@article{a0e250f2367648e29def11c4f97bdccf,
title = "Open-ended interview questions and saturation",
abstract = "Sample size determination for open-ended questions or qualitative interviews relies primarily on custom and finding the point where little new information is obtained (thematic saturation). Here, we propose and test a refined definition of saturation as obtaining the most salient items in a set of qualitative interviews (where items can be material things or concepts, depending on the topic of study) rather than attempting to obtain all the items. Salient items have higher prevalence and are more culturally important. To do this, we explore saturation, salience, sample size, and domain size in 28 sets of interviews in which respondents were asked to list all the things they could think of in one of 18 topical domains. The domains —like kinds of fruits (highly bounded) and things that mothers do (unbounded)—varied greatly in size. The datasets comprise 20–99 interviews each (1,147 total interviews). When saturation was defined as the point where less than one new item per person would be expected, the median sample size for reaching saturation was 75 (range = 15–194). Thematic saturation was, as expected, related to domain size. It was also related to the amount of information contributed by each respondent but, unexpectedly, was reached more quickly when respondents contributed less information. In contrast, a greater amount of information per person increased the retrieval of salient items. Even small samples (n = 10) produced 95{\%} of the most salient ideas with exhaustive listing, but only 53{\%} of those items were captured with limited responses per person (three). For most domains, item salience appeared to be a more useful concept for thinking about sample size adequacy than finding the point of thematic saturation. Thus, we advance the concept of saturation in salience and emphasize probing to increase the amount of information collected per respondent to increase sample efficiency.",
author = "Susan Weller and Ben Vickers and {Russell Bernard}, H. and Blackburn, {Alyssa M.} and Stephen Borgatti and Gravlee, {Clarence C.} and Johnson, {Jeffrey C.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0198606",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open-ended interview questions and saturation

AU - Weller, Susan

AU - Vickers, Ben

AU - Russell Bernard, H.

AU - Blackburn, Alyssa M.

AU - Borgatti, Stephen

AU - Gravlee, Clarence C.

AU - Johnson, Jeffrey C.

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Sample size determination for open-ended questions or qualitative interviews relies primarily on custom and finding the point where little new information is obtained (thematic saturation). Here, we propose and test a refined definition of saturation as obtaining the most salient items in a set of qualitative interviews (where items can be material things or concepts, depending on the topic of study) rather than attempting to obtain all the items. Salient items have higher prevalence and are more culturally important. To do this, we explore saturation, salience, sample size, and domain size in 28 sets of interviews in which respondents were asked to list all the things they could think of in one of 18 topical domains. The domains —like kinds of fruits (highly bounded) and things that mothers do (unbounded)—varied greatly in size. The datasets comprise 20–99 interviews each (1,147 total interviews). When saturation was defined as the point where less than one new item per person would be expected, the median sample size for reaching saturation was 75 (range = 15–194). Thematic saturation was, as expected, related to domain size. It was also related to the amount of information contributed by each respondent but, unexpectedly, was reached more quickly when respondents contributed less information. In contrast, a greater amount of information per person increased the retrieval of salient items. Even small samples (n = 10) produced 95% of the most salient ideas with exhaustive listing, but only 53% of those items were captured with limited responses per person (three). For most domains, item salience appeared to be a more useful concept for thinking about sample size adequacy than finding the point of thematic saturation. Thus, we advance the concept of saturation in salience and emphasize probing to increase the amount of information collected per respondent to increase sample efficiency.

AB - Sample size determination for open-ended questions or qualitative interviews relies primarily on custom and finding the point where little new information is obtained (thematic saturation). Here, we propose and test a refined definition of saturation as obtaining the most salient items in a set of qualitative interviews (where items can be material things or concepts, depending on the topic of study) rather than attempting to obtain all the items. Salient items have higher prevalence and are more culturally important. To do this, we explore saturation, salience, sample size, and domain size in 28 sets of interviews in which respondents were asked to list all the things they could think of in one of 18 topical domains. The domains —like kinds of fruits (highly bounded) and things that mothers do (unbounded)—varied greatly in size. The datasets comprise 20–99 interviews each (1,147 total interviews). When saturation was defined as the point where less than one new item per person would be expected, the median sample size for reaching saturation was 75 (range = 15–194). Thematic saturation was, as expected, related to domain size. It was also related to the amount of information contributed by each respondent but, unexpectedly, was reached more quickly when respondents contributed less information. In contrast, a greater amount of information per person increased the retrieval of salient items. Even small samples (n = 10) produced 95% of the most salient ideas with exhaustive listing, but only 53% of those items were captured with limited responses per person (three). For most domains, item salience appeared to be a more useful concept for thinking about sample size adequacy than finding the point of thematic saturation. Thus, we advance the concept of saturation in salience and emphasize probing to increase the amount of information collected per respondent to increase sample efficiency.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048816823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048816823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0198606

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0198606

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 6

M1 - e0198606

ER -