PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 29, 2016American Journal of Evaluation419 citations

Evaluating Bang for the Buck

View Full Paper
ENEmily NameyFamily Health International 360GGGreg GuestFamily Health International 360KMKevin McKennaDuke University

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Evaluators often use qualitative research methods, yet there is little evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two most commonly employed qualitative methods—in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus groups (FGs). We performed an inductive thematic analysis of data from 40 IDIs and 40 FGs on the health-seeking behaviors of African American men ( N = 350) in Durham, North Carolina. We used a bootstrap simulation to generate 10,000 random samples from each data set and calculated the number of data collection events necessary to reach different levels of thematic saturation. The median number of data collection events required to reach 80% and 90% saturation was 8 and 16, respectively, for IDIs and 3 and 5 for FGs. Interviews took longer but were more cost-effective at both levels. At the median, IDIs cost 20–36% less to reach thematic saturation. Evaluators can consider these empirically based cost-effectiveness data when selecting a qualitative data collection method.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Namey et al. (2016) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d76bf7f44a16d01ef30e56https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016630406
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper