'2/$>+53=+=3?/%/98;='2/$>+53=+=3?/%/98;=
)85>6/ !>6,/; 8@'8;=3-5/
8-><;8>9+=+&+=>;+=387!/@99;8+-2=8+=+7+5B<3<8-><;8>9+=+&+=>;+=387!/@99;8+-2=8+=+7+5B<3<
+;B+7-8-4#2%!"
&2/92/;.(73?/;<3=B
62+7-8-4<2/92/;./.>
37.+6+74@++#2%!!
5,+7B&=+=/(73?/;<3=B(73?/;<3=B80#28/73A
+;3+%/?/55#2 &!%!"
'/77/<<//&=+=/(73?/;<3=B
+5/ >/55/;. &!!
+5308;73+&=+=/(73?/;<3=B
8558@=23<+7.+..3=387+5@8;4<+=2==9<7<>@8;4<78?+/.>=:;
#+;=80=2/$>+7=3=+=3?/$>+53=+=3?/869+;+=3?/+7.3<=8;3-+5 /=28.85813/<86687<+7.=2/
&8-3+5&=+=3<=3-<86687<
%/-866/7./.#3=+=387%/-866/7./.#3=+=387
+7-8-4 6+74@++%/?/55 >/55/;8-><;8>9+=+&+=>;+=387!/@
99;8+-2=8+=+7+5B<3<
'2/$>+53=+=3?/%/98;=
2==9<.838;1
'23<8@'8;=3-5/3<,;8>12==8B8>08;0;//+7.89/7+--/<<,B=2/'2/$>+53=+=3?/%/98;=+=!&(*8;4<=2+<
,//7+--/9=/.08;37-5><38737'2/$>+53=+=3?/%/98;=,B+7+>=28;3C/.+.6373<=;+=8;80!&(*8;4<8;68;/
3708;6+=38795/+</-87=+-=7<>@8;4<78?+/.>
8-><;8>9+=+&+=>;+=387!/@99;8+-2=8+=+7+5B<3<8-><;8>9+=+&+=>;+=387!/@99;8+-2=8+=+7+5B<3<
,<=;+-=,<=;+-=
'2/:>+53=+=3?/;/</+;-2F185.<=+7.+;.G08;:>+53=B;/</+;-23<.+=+<+=>;+=387'2/5363=/.53=/;+=>;/87
;/98;=371.+=+<+=>;+=387+7.=;+7<9+;/7-B37:>+53=+=3?/;/</+;-22+<<>998;=/.+737-87<3<=/7=;/</+;-2
<=+7.+;.<>11/<=371;/</+;-2/;<2+?/78=+./:>+=/5B;/98;=/..+=+<+=>;+=387=89;868=/=;+7<9+;/7-B
"E%/355B#+;4/;870><387;/1+;.37128@=8+7+5BC/:>+53=+=3?/.+=+=8+-23/?/.+=+<+=>;+=387
28@=8@;3=/-5/+;:>+53=+=3?/;/</+;-2H7.371<+7.9;/</7==2/</H7.371<37+><+,5/6+77/;-87=37>/<
&+7./58@<43//6+792/786/785813-+5+<B7-2;878><87537/08-><1;8>9><371
*8;.#;/<<D@+</6958B/.=8+7<@/;=2/;/</+;-2:>/<=387+</.87=2/->;;/7=53=/;+=>;/87=2/=893-
8008-><1;8>9.+=+<+=>;+=387=2/<=>.BH7.371<@/;/+7+5BC/.,B1;8>937.3?3.>+5+7..+B80=2/<=>.B
..3=387+55B=2/.+=+@+<9;/</7=/.37+-2+;=08;6+=9;8?3.371+?3<3,5/+99;8+-2=8.+=++7+5B<3<+7.
<+=>;+=3876958B371=2;//.300/;/7=6/=28.<80.+=++7+5B<3<=8-87H;6<+=>;+=387+7.=;+7<9+;/7-B
9;8?3./<:>+53=+=3?/;/</+;-2/;<@3=2.300/;/7=+99;8+-2/<=8.+=++7+5B<3<08;<+=>;+=387+7.
/72+7-/6/7=80=;><=@8;=237/<<#5+-371.+=+37+?3<>+5-87H1>;+=3879;8?3./<+7+5=/;7+=3?/6/=28.80
9;/</7=371;/</+;-2H7.371<'2/.+=++7+5B<3<6/=28.<9;/</7=/.+;/78=6/+7==8;/95+-//A3<=371
6/=28.<80+-23/?371.+=+<+=>;+=387,>==89;8?3./+7+5=/;7+=/+99;8+-2=8+-23/?371.+=+<+=>;+=387
+7.;/98;=371=2/H7.371<37+-5/+;><+,5/08;6+=
/B@8;.</B@8;.<
$>+53=+=3?/%/</+;-28-><;8>9+=+&+=>;+=387';><=@8;=237/<<
;/+=3?/86687<3-/7</;/+=3?/86687<3-/7</
'23<@8;43<53-/7</.>7./;+;/+=3?/86687<==;3,>=387!87-866/;-3+5&2+;/534/3-/7</
-478@5/.1/6/7=<-478@5/.1/6/7=<
+;B@8>5.534/=8=2+742/;.3<</;=+=387-2+3;;37.+6+74@+++7.2/;-8663==//6/6,/;<;
+;3+%/?/55+7.;+5/ >/55/;08;=2/3;<>998;=+7.1>3.+7-/37./?/5893712/;H;<=98<=.8-=8;+5
.3<</;=+=387<=>.B+;=3-5/&2/@8>5.+5<8534/=8=2+742/;-855/+1>/<+=&2/92/;.(73?/;<3=B08;=2/3;
<>998;=+<<2/-8695/=/.2/;.3<</;=+=387
'23<28@=8+;=3-5/3<+?+35+,5/37'2/$>+53=+=3?/%/98;=2==9<7<>@8;4<78?+/.>=:;?853<<
The Qualitative Report 2016 Volume 21, Number 11, How To Article 1, 2124-2130
Focus Group Data Saturation: A New Approach to Data Analysis
Mary E. Hancock
Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, USA
Linda Amankwaa
Albany State University, Georgia, USA
University of Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Maria A. Revell
Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Dale Mueller
California State University – Dominguez Hills, Carson, California, USA
The qualitative research “gold standard” for quality research is data
saturation. The limited literature on reporting data saturation and transparency
in qualitative research has supported an inconsistent research standard
suggesting researchers have not adequately reported data saturation to
promote transparency (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). Confusion regarding how to
analyze qualitative data to achieve data saturation, how to write clear
qualitative research findings, and present these findings in a usable manner
continues (Sandelowski & Leeman, 2012). A phenomenological asynchronous
online focus group using WordPress® was employed to answer the research
question. Based on the current literature on the topic of focus group data
saturation, the study findings were analyzed by group, individual, and day of
the study. Additionally, the data was presented in a chart format providing a
visible approach to data analysis and saturation. Employing three different
methods of data analysis to confirm saturation and transparency provides
qualitative researchers with different approaches to data analysis for saturation
and enhancement of trustworthiness. Placing data in a visual configuration
provides an alternative method of presenting research findings. The data
analysis methods presented are not meant to replace existing methods of
achieving data saturation but to provide an alternate approach to achieving
data saturation and reporting the findings in a clear, usable format. Keywords:
Qualitative Research, Focus Group, Data Saturation, Trustworthiness
The qualitative research “gold standard” for quality research is data saturation. Instead
of relying on the number of participants, qualitative research focuses on different perspectives
and opinions of participants. The limited literature on reporting data saturation and
transparency in qualitative research has supported an inconsistent research standard suggesting
researchers have not adequately reported data saturation to promote transparency (O’Reilly &
Parker, 2012). Confusion regarding how to analyze qualitative data to achieve data saturation,
how to write clear qualitative research findings, and present these findings in a usable manner
continues (Sandelowski & Leeman, 2012). This article provides a new approach for analyzing
phenomenological focus group data for saturation and presenting usable findings.
Mary E. Hancock, Linda Amankwaa, Maria A. Revell, and Dale Mueller 2125
Focus Group Study
A 10-day phenomenological focus group employed an asynchronous online research
design in a quest to understand the lived experience of male registered nurses (RNs) seeking
employment in healthcare organizations, particularly when choosing a nursing specialty.
Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval was obtained from the University of Phoenix.
Five open-ended interview questions were posted on the study’s WordPress® website.
Participants were required to answer the five interview questions and respond to two fellow
study participants to facilitate discussion. The participants were able to view the postings of
each participant during the study promoting interaction. Eight male RNs completed the 10-day
study. Data saturation was set at five responses per theme and subtheme. Trustworthiness
criteria were met.
Saturation: Current Approach
Thematic data saturation is reached when there are no new emerging ideas in the data
(Bowen, 2008; Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013; O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). As noted
by Kerr, Nixon, and Wild (2010), the term data saturation is best described as data adequacy
meaning no new information is obtained. Complicating the issue of data saturation is the lack
of evidence and guidelines in current qualitative research in how to reach data saturation
(Bowen, 2008; Francis et al., 2010; Kerr et al., 2010). O’Reilly and Parker (2012) discuss
saturation noting that the idea of data saturation begins with the qualitative research method of
grounded theory and specific theory-driven meanings. Although data saturation is applied to
other qualitative research methods, it is not appropriate for every qualitative research method.
Further complicating the issue is data saturation has multiple meanings resulting in limited
transparency (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012).
Sandelowski and Leeman (2012) discussed the challenge of presenting qualitative
research findings. The researcher is obliged to present their research findings in a manner that
permits transferability. The reader is obliged to have sufficient knowledge to transfer the
results (p. 1405). The researchers discuss the need to present thematic sentences in the form
of sets to enhance the visualization of the data for clarity and transferability. Without a clear
presentation of research findings, the reader cannot transfer the results placing trustworthiness
in question.
Focus Groups
Determining data saturation for a focus group is challenging. The current literature
addresses focus groups in terms of planning and conducting a focus group (Curtis & Redmond,
2007; Doody, Slevin, & Taggart, 2013; Freeman, 2006; Jayasekara, 2012; Kitzinger, 1995;
MacDougall & Fudge, 2001; Manoranjitham & Jacob, 2007; Shaha, Wenzel, & Hill, 2011).
Few articles discuss data analysis of focus group data and application of the data to ensure
trustworthiness. There is controversy in the limited literature regarding whether the individual
or group is analyzed. Kitzinger (1995) stated focus group data must be reviewed in its entirety
analyzing the data as a group, then individually. In terms of reporting, focus group data must
not be presented using percentages and individual opinions not conforming to group consensus
must also be considered (Kitzinger, 1995). Manoranjitham and Jacob (2007) confirmed
Kitzinger (1995) stating focus group data must be presented in descriptive form highlighting
differing individual beliefs. However, Kidd and Parshall (2000) stated there is not a single unit
of analysis but the individual, group, or both could be the focus of the analysis. Employing
2126 The Qualitative Report 2016
flexible analytical approaches to identify influences on the individual or group must be
considered prior to developing conclusions (Kidd & Parshall, 2000).
Because of the nature of the asynchronous online format, focus group participants
entered and exited the study at various points during the 10-day time frame. Answering the
interview questions and responding to other participants took place at various times during the
study adding, confirming or refuting information. Therefore, the exact time of data saturation
was difficult to determine. Im and Chee (2006) confirmed the issue of specific timing of data
saturation discovering the asynchronous online format encouraged interaction, but the
interaction was delayed leading to difficulty in determining data saturation. A flexible data
analysis approach was necessary to ensure saturation. Based on the current literature, data was
analyzed by the group, individual, and by day of the study.
Saturation: New Approach
Data Saturation by Group
Criteria for data saturation was set at five responses per theme and subtheme based on
group analysis. Each time a participant discussed a theme or subtheme, the response was
logged. Data saturation was reached after the first six participants completing the interview
questions and responding to two fellow participants on day eight of the study. Two participants
answered interview questions and responded to two fellow participants during the last two days
of the study confirming data saturation. Each theme and subtheme was saturated meeting the
criteria for data saturation by the group (see Figure 1).
Focus Group Data by Theme and Subtheme
Figure 1. Group data saturation by theme and subtheme.
Data Saturation by Individual Participant
The nature of phenomenology is to explore the experience and perspective of the
phenomena in question. The lived experience of the male RN seeking employment is highly
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of Responses
Themes and Subthemes