questionnaire sample size for dissertation

• Sign Up Now
• -- Navigate To -- CR Dashboard Connect for Researchers Connect for Participants
• Log In Log Out Log In
• Recent Press
• Papers Citing Connect
• Connect for Participants
• Connect for Researchers
• Connect AI Training
• Managed Research
• Prime Panels
• MTurk Toolkit
• Health & Medicine
• Conferences
• Knowledge Base
• A Researcher’s Guide To Statistical Significance And Sample Size Calculations

Determining Sample Size: How Many Survey Participants Do You Need?

Quick Navigation:

How to calculate a statistically significant sample size in research, determining sample size for probability-based surveys and polling studies, determining sample size for controlled surveys, determining sample size for experiments, how to calculate sample size for simple experiments, an example sample size calculation for an a/b test, what if i don’t know what size difference to expect, part iii: sample size: how many participants do i need for a survey to be valid.

In the U.S., there is a Presidential election every four years. In election years, there is a steady stream of polls in the months leading up to the election announcing which candidates are up and which are down in the horse race of popular opinion.

If you have ever wondered what makes these polls accurate and how each poll decides how many voters to talk to, then you have thought like a researcher who seeks to know how many participants they need in order to obtain statistically significant survey results.

Statistically significant results are those in which the researchers have confidence their findings are not due to chance . Obtaining statistically significant results depends on the researchers’ sample size (how many people they gather data from) and the overall size of the population they wish to understand (voters in the U.S., for example).

Calculating sample sizes can be difficult even for expert researchers. Here, we show you how to calculate sample size for a variety of different research designs.

Before jumping into the details, it is worth noting that formal sample size calculations are often based on the premise that researchers are conducting a representative survey with probability-based sampling techniques. Probability-based sampling ensures that every member of the population being studied has an equal chance of participating in the study and respondents are selected at random.

For a variety of reasons, probability sampling is not feasible for most behavioral studies conducted in industry and academia . As a result, we outline the steps required to calculate sample sizes for probability-based surveys and then extend our discussion to calculating sample sizes for non-probability surveys (i.e., controlled samples) and experiments.

Determining how many people you need to sample in a survey study can be difficult. How difficult? Look at this formula for sample size.

No one wants to work through something like that just to know how many people they should sample. Fortunately, there are several sample size calculators online that simplify knowing how many people to collect data from.

Even if you use a sample size calculator, however, you still need to know some important details about your study. Specifically, you need to know:

• What is the population size in my research?

Population size is the total number of people in the group you are trying to study. If, for example, you were conducting a poll asking U.S. voters about Presidential candidates, then your population of interest would be everyone living in the U.S.—about 330 million people.

Determining the size of the population you’re interested in will often require some background research. For instance, if your company sells digital marketing services and you’re interested in surveying potential customers, it isn’t easy to determine the size of your population. Everyone who is currently engaged in digital marketing may be a potential customer. In situations like these, you can often use industry data or other information to arrive at a reasonable estimate for your population size.

• What margin of error should you use?

Margin of error is a percentage that tells you how much the results from your sample may deviate from the views of the overall population. The smaller your margin of error, the closer your data reflect the opinion of the population at a given confidence level.

Generally speaking, the more people you gather data from the smaller your margin of error. However, because it is almost never feasible to collect data from everyone in the population, some margin of error is necessary in most studies.

• What is your survey’s significance level?

The significance level  is a percentage that tells you how confident you can be that the true population value lies within your margin of error. So, for example, if you are asking people whether they support a candidate for President, the significance level tells you how likely it is that the level of support for the candidate in the population (i.e., people not in your sample) falls within the margin of error found in your sample.

Common significance levels in survey research are 90%, 95%, and 99%.

Once you know the values above, you can plug them into a sample size formula or more conveniently an online calculator to determine your sample size.

The table below displays the necessary sample size for different sized populations and margin of errors. As you can see, even when a population is large, researchers can often understand the entire group with about 1,000 respondents.

• How Many People Should I Invite to My Study?

Sample size calculations tell you how many people you need to complete your survey. What they do not tell you, however, is how many people you need to invite to your survey. To find that number, you need to consider the response rate.

For example, if you are conducting a study of customer satisfaction and you know from previous experience that only about 30% of the people you contact will actually respond to your survey, then you can determine how many people you should invite to the survey to wind up with your desired sample size.

All you have to do is take the number of respondents you need, divide by your expected response rate, and multiple by 100. For example, if you need 500 customers to respond to your survey and you know the response rate is 30%, you should invite about 1,666 people to your study (500/30*100 = 1,666).

Sample size formulas are based on probability sampling techniques—methods that randomly select people from the population to participate in a survey. For most market surveys and academic studies, however, researchers do not use probability sampling methods. Instead they use a mix of convenience and purposive sampling methods that we refer to as controlled sampling .

When surveys and descriptive studies are based on controlled sampling methods, how should researchers calculate sample size?

When the study’s aim is to measure the frequency of something or to describe people’s behavior, we recommend following the calculations made for probability sampling. This often translates to a sample of about 1,000 to 2,000 people. When a study’s aim is to investigate a correlational relationship, however, we recommend sampling between 500 and 1,000 people. More participants in a study will always be better, but these numbers are a useful rule of thumb for researchers seeking to find out how many participants they need to sample.

If you look online, you will find many sources with information for calculating sample size when conducting a survey, but fewer resources for calculating sample size when conducting an experiment. Experiments involve randomly assigning people to different conditions and manipulating variables in order to determine a cause-and-effect relationship. The reason why sample size calculators for experiments are hard to find is simple: experiments are complex and sample size calculations depend on several factors.

The guidance we offer here is to help researchers calculate sample size for some of the simplest and most common experimental designs: t -tests, A/B tests, and chi square tests.

Many businesses today rely on A/B tests. Especially in the digital environment, A/B tests provide an efficient way to learn what kinds of features, messages, and displays cause people to spend more time or money on a website or an app.

For example, one common use of A/B testing is marketing emails. A marketing manager might create two versions of an email, randomly send one to half the company’s customers and randomly send the second to the other half of customers and then measure which email generates more sales.

In many cases , researchers may know they want to conduct an A/B test but be unsure how many people they need in their sample to obtain statistically significant results. In order to begin a sample size calculation, you need to know three things.

1. The significance level .

The significance level represents how sure you want to be that your results are not due to chance. A significance level of .05 is a good starting point, but you may adjust this number up or down depending on the aim of your study.

2. Your desired power.

Statistical tests are only useful when they have enough power to detect an effect if one actually exists. Most researchers aim for 80% power—meaning their tests are sensitive enough to detect an effect 8 out of 10 times if one exists.

3. The minimum effect size you are interested in.

The final piece of information you need is the minimum effect size, or difference between groups, you are interested in. Sometimes there may be a difference between groups, but if the difference is so small that it makes little practical difference to your business, it probably isn’t worth investigating. Determining the minimum effect size you are interested in requires some thought about your goals and the potential impact on your business. 

Once you have decided on the factors above, you can use a sample size calculator to determine how many people you need in each of your study’s conditions.

Let’s say a marketing team wants to test two different email campaigns. They set their significance level at .05 and their power at 80%. In addition, the team determines that the minimum response rate difference between groups that they are interested in is 7.5%. Plugging these numbers into an effect size calculator reveals that the team needs 693 people in each condition of their study, for a total of 1,386.

Sending an email out to 1,386 people who are already on your contact list doesn’t cost too much. But for many other studies, each respondent you recruit will cost money. For this reason, it is important to strongly consider what the minimum effect size of interest is when planning a study.    

When you don’t know what size difference to expect among groups, you can default to one of a few rules of thumb. First, use the effect size of minimum practical significance. By deciding what the minimum difference is between groups that would be meaningful, you can avoid spending resources investigating things that are likely to have little consequences for your business.

A second rule of thumb that is particularly relevant for researchers in academia is to assume an effect size of d = .4. A d = .4 is considered by some to be the smallest effect size that begins to have practical relevance . And fortunately, with this effect size and just two conditions, researchers need about 100 people per condition.

After you know how many people to recruit for your study, the next step is finding your participants. By using CloudResearch’s Prime Panels or MTurk Toolkit, you can gain access to more than 50 million people worldwide in addition to user-friendly tools designed to make running your study easy. We can help you find your sample regardless of what your study entails. Need people from a narrow demographic group? Looking to collect data from thousands of people? Do you need people who are willing to engage in a long or complicated study? Our team has the knowledge and expertise to match you with the right group of participants for your study. Get in touch with us today and learn what we can do for you.

Continue Reading: A Researcher’s Guide to Statistical Significance and Sample Size Calculations

Part 1: What Does It Mean for Research to Be Statistically Significant?

Part 2: How to Calculate Statistical Significance

Related articles, what is data quality and why is it important.

If you were a researcher studying human behavior 30 years ago, your options for identifying participants for your studies were limited. If you worked at a university, you might be...

How to Identify and Handle Invalid Responses to Online Surveys

As a researcher, you are aware that planning studies, designing materials and collecting data each take a lot of work. So when you get your hands on a new dataset,...

SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE UPDATES

2024 grant application form, personal and institutional information.

• Full Name * First Last
• Position/Title *
• Affiliated Academic Institution or Research Organization *

Detailed Research Proposal Questions

• Project Title *
• Research Category * - Antisemitism Islamophobia Both
• Objectives *
• Methodology (including who the targeted participants are) *
• Expected Outcomes *
• Significance of the Study *

Budget and Grant Tier Request

• Requested Grant Tier * - $200 $500 $1000 Applicants requesting larger grants may still be eligible for smaller awards if the full amount requested is not granted.
• Budget Justification *

Research Timeline

• Projected Start Date * MM slash DD slash YYYY Preference will be given to projects that can commence soon, preferably before September 2024.
• Estimated Completion Date * MM slash DD slash YYYY Preference will be given to projects that aim to complete within a year.
• Project Timeline *
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• Name * First Name Last Name
• I would like to request a demo of the Sentry platform
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Name * First name Last name

• Name * First Last
• Name * First and Last
• Please select the best time to discuss your project goals/details to claim your free Sentry pilot for the next 60 days or to receive 10% off your first Managed Research study with Sentry.
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• Email * Enter Email Confirm Email
• Organization
• Job Title *

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Audience

Sample Size Determination: Definition, Formula, and Example

Are you ready to survey your research target? Research surveys help you gain insights from your target audience. The data you collect gives you insights to meet customer needs, leading to increased sales and customer loyalty. Sample size calculation and determination are imperative to the researcher to determine the right number of respondents, keeping in mind the research study’s quality.

So, how should you do the sample size determination? How do you know who should get your survey? How do you decide on the number of the target audience?

Sending out too many surveys can be expensive without giving you a definitive advantage over a smaller sample. But if you send out too few, you won’t have enough data to draw accurate conclusions. 

Knowing how to calculate and determine the appropriate sample size accurately can give you an edge over your competitors. Let’s take a look at what a good sample includes. Also, let’s look at the sample size calculation formula so you can determine the perfect sample size for your next survey.

What is Sample Size?

‘Sample size’ is a market research term used for defining the number of individuals included in conducting research. Researchers choose their sample based on demographics, such as age, gender questions , or physical location. It can be vague or specific. 

For example, you may want to know what people within the 18-25 age range think of your product. Or, you may only require your sample to live in the United States, giving you a wide population range. The total number of individuals in a particular sample is the sample size.

What is sample size determination?

Sample size determination is the process of choosing the right number of observations or people from a larger group to use in a sample. The goal of figuring out the sample size is to ensure that the sample is big enough to give statistically valid results and accurate estimates of population parameters but small enough to be manageable and cost-effective.

In many research studies, getting information from every member of the population of interest is not possible or useful. Instead, researchers choose a sample of people or events that is representative of the whole to study. How accurate and precise the results are can depend a lot on the size of the sample.

Choosing the statistically significant sample size depends on a number of things, such as the size of the population, how precise you want your estimates to be, how confident you want to be in the results, how different the population is likely to be, and how much money and time you have for the study. Statistics are often used to figure out how big a sample should be for a certain type of study and research question.

Figuring out the sample size is important in ensuring that research findings and conclusions are valid and reliable.

Why do you need to determine the sample size?

Let’s say you are a market researcher in the US and want to send out a survey or questionnaire . The survey aims to understand your audience’s feelings toward a new cell phone you are about to launch. You want to know what people in the US think about the new product to predict the phone’s success or failure before launch.

Hypothetically, you choose the population of New York, which is 8.49 million. You use a sample size determination formula to select a sample of 500 individuals that fit into the consumer panel requirement. You can use the responses to help you determine how your audience will react to the new product.

However, determining a sample size requires more than just throwing your survey at as many people as possible. If your estimated sample sizes are too big, it could waste resources, time, and money. A sample size that’s too small doesn’t allow you to gain maximum insights, leading to inconclusive results.

LEARN ABOUT: Survey Sample Sizes

What are the terms used around the sample size?

Before we jump into sample size determination, let’s take a look at the terms you should know:

1. Population size: 

Population size is how many people fit your demographic. For example, you want to get information on doctors residing in North America. Your population size is the total number of doctors in North America. 

Don’t worry! Your population size doesn’t always have to be that big. Smaller population sizes can still give you accurate results as long as you know who you’re trying to represent.

2. Confidence level: 

The confidence level tells you how sure you can be that your data is accurate. It is expressed as a percentage and aligned to the confidence interval. For example, if your confidence level is 90%, your results will most likely be 90% accurate.

3. The margin of error (confidence interval): 

There’s no way to be 100% accurate when it comes to surveys. Confidence intervals tell you how far off from the population means you’re willing to allow your data to fall. 

A margin of error describes how close you can reasonably expect a survey result to fall relative to the real population value. Remember, if you need help with this information, use our margin of error calculator .

4. Standard deviation: 

Standard deviation is the measure of the dispersion of a data set from its mean. It measures the absolute variability of a distribution. The higher the dispersion or variability, the greater the standard deviation and the greater the magnitude of the deviation. 

For example, you have already sent out your survey. How much variance do you expect in your responses? That variation in response is the standard deviation.

Sample size calculation formula – sample size determination

With all the necessary terms defined, it’s time to learn how to determine sample size using a sample calculation formula.

Your confidence level corresponds to a Z-score. This is a constant value needed for this equation. Here are the z-scores for the most common confidence levels:

90% – Z Score = 1.645

95% – Z Score = 1.96

99% – Z Score = 2.576

If you choose a different confidence level, various online tools can help you find your score.

Necessary Sample Size = (Z-score)2 * StdDev*(1-StdDev) / (margin of error)2

Here is an example of how the math works, assuming you chose a 90% confidence level, .6 standard deviation, and a margin of error (confidence interval) of +/- 4%.

((1.64)2 x .6(.6)) / (.04)2

( 2.68x .0.36) / .0016

.9648 / .0016

603 respondents are needed, and that becomes your sample size.

Free Sample Size Calculator

How is a sample size determined?

Determining the right sample size for your survey is one of the most common questions researchers ask when they begin a market research study. Luckily, sample size determination isn’t as hard to calculate as you might remember from an old high school statistics class.

Before calculating your sample size, ensure you have these things in place:

Goals and objectives: 

What do you hope to do with the survey? Are you planning on projecting the results onto a whole demographic or population? Do you want to see what a specific group thinks? Are you trying to make a big decision or just setting a direction? 

Calculating sample size is critical if you’re projecting your survey results on a larger population. You’ll want to make sure that it’s balanced and reflects the community as a whole. The sample size isn’t as critical if you’re trying to get a feel for preferences. 

For example, you’re surveying homeowners across the US on the cost of cooling their homes in the summer. A homeowner in the South probably spends much more money cooling their home in the humid heat than someone in Denver, where the climate is dry and cool. 

For the most accurate results, you’ll need to get responses from people in all US areas and environments. If you only collect responses from one extreme, such as the warm South, your results will be skewed.

Precision level: 

How close do you want the survey results to mimic the true value if everyone responded? Again, if this survey determines how you’re going to spend millions of dollars, then your sample size determination should be exact. 

The more accurate you need to be, the larger the sample you want to have, and the more your sample will have to represent the overall population. If your population is small, say, 200 people, you may want to survey the entire population rather than cut it down with a sample.

Confidence level: 

Think of confidence from the perspective of risk. How much risk are you willing to take on? This is where your Confidence Interval numbers become important. How confident do you want to be — 98% confident, 95% confident? 

Understand that the confidence percentage you choose greatly impacts the number of completions you’ll need for accuracy. This can increase the survey’s length and how many responses you need, which means increased costs for your survey. 

Knowing the actual numbers and amounts behind percentages can help make more sense of your correct sample size needs vs. survey costs. 

For example, you want to be 99% confident. After using the sample size determination formula, you find you need to collect an additional 1000 respondents. 

This, in turn, means you’ll be paying for samples or keeping your survey running for an extra week or two. You have to determine if the increased accuracy is more important than the cost.

Population variability: 

What variability exists in your population? In other words, how similar or different is the population?

If you are surveying consumers on a broad topic, you may have lots of variations. You’ll need a larger sample size to get the most accurate picture of the population. 

However, if you’re surveying a population with similar characteristics, your variability will be less, and you can sample fewer people. More variability equals more samples, and less variability equals fewer samples. If you’re not sure, you can start with 50% variability.

Response rate: 

You want everyone to respond to your survey. Unfortunately, every survey comes with targeted respondents who either never open the study or drop out halfway. Your response rate will depend on your population’s engagement with your product, service organization, or brand. 

The higher the response rate, the higher your population’s engagement level. Your base sample size is the number of responses you must get for a successful survey.

Consider your audience: 

Besides the variability within your population, you need to ensure your sample doesn’t include people who won’t benefit from the results. One of the biggest mistakes you can make in sample size determination is forgetting to consider your actual audience. 

For example, you don’t want to send a survey asking about the quality of local apartment amenities to a group of homeowners.

Select your respondents

Focus on your survey’s objectives: 

You may start with general demographics and characteristics, but can you narrow those characteristics down even more? Narrowing down your audience makes getting a more accurate result from a small sample size easier. 

For example, you want to know how people will react to new automobile technology. Your current population includes anyone who owns a car in a particular market. 

However, you know your target audience is people who drive cars that are less than five years old. You can remove anyone with an older vehicle from your sample because they’re unlikely to purchase your product.

Once you know what you hope to gain from your survey and what variables exist within your population, you can decide how to calculate sample size. Using the formula for determining sample size is a great starting point to get accurate results. 

After calculating the sample size, you’ll want to find reliable customer survey software to help you accurately collect survey responses and turn them into analyzed reports.

LEARN MORE: Population vs Sample

In sample size determination, statistical analysis plan needs careful consideration of the level of significance, effect size, and sample size. 

Researchers must reconcile statistical significance with practical and ethical factors like practicality and cost. A well-designed study with a sufficient sample size can improve the odds of obtaining statistically significant results.

To meet the goal of your survey, you may have to try a few methods to increase the response rate, such as:

• Increase the list of people who receive the survey.
• To reach a wider audience, use multiple distribution channels, such as SMS, website, and email surveys.
• Send reminders to survey participants to complete the survey.
• Offer incentives for completing the survey, such as an entry into a prize drawing or a discount on the respondent’s next order.
• Consider your survey structure and find ways to simplify your questions. The less work someone has to do to complete the survey, the more likely they will finish it. 
• Longer surveys tend to have lower response rates due to the length of time it takes to complete the survey. In this case, you can reduce the number of questions in your survey to increase responses.  

QuestionPro’s sample size calculator makes it easy to find the right sample size for your research based on your desired level of confidence, your margin of error, and the size of the population.

FREE TRIAL         LEARN MORE

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

The four ways to determine sample size are: 1. Power analysis 2. Convenience sampling, 3. Random sampling , 4. Stratified sampling

The three factors that determine sample size are: 1. Effect size, 2. Level of significance 3. Power

Using statistical techniques like power analysis, the minimal detectable effect size, or the sample size formula while taking into account the study’s goals and practical limitations is the best way to calculate the sample size.

The sample size is important because it affects how precise and accurate the results of a study are and how well researchers can spot real effects or relationships between variables.

The sample size is the number of observations or study participants chosen to be representative of a larger group

MORE LIKE THIS

Life@QuestionPro: The Journey of Kristie Lawrence

Jun 7, 2024

How Can I Help You? — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Jun 5, 2024

Why Multilingual 360 Feedback Surveys Provide Better Insights

Jun 3, 2024

Raked Weighting: A Key Tool for Accurate Survey Results

May 31, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Psychol Med
• v.42(1); Jan-Feb 2020

Sample Size and its Importance in Research

Chittaranjan andrade.

Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, Department of Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neurotoxicology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

The sample size for a study needs to be estimated at the time the study is proposed; too large a sample is unnecessary and unethical, and too small a sample is unscientific and also unethical. The necessary sample size can be calculated, using statistical software, based on certain assumptions. If no assumptions can be made, then an arbitrary sample size is set for a pilot study. This article discusses sample size and how it relates to matters such as ethics, statistical power, the primary and secondary hypotheses in a study, and findings from larger vs. smaller samples.

Studies are conducted on samples because it is usually impossible to study the entire population. Conclusions drawn from samples are intended to be generalized to the population, and sometimes to the future as well. The sample must therefore be representative of the population. This is best ensured by the use of proper methods of sampling. The sample must also be adequate in size – in fact, no more and no less.

SAMPLE SIZE AND ETHICS

A sample that is larger than necessary will be better representative of the population and will hence provide more accurate results. However, beyond a certain point, the increase in accuracy will be small and hence not worth the effort and expense involved in recruiting the extra patients. Furthermore, an overly large sample would inconvenience more patients than might be necessary for the study objectives; this is unethical. In contrast, a sample that is smaller than necessary would have insufficient statistical power to answer the primary research question, and a statistically nonsignificant result could merely be because of inadequate sample size (Type 2 or false negative error). Thus, a small sample could result in the patients in the study being inconvenienced with no benefit to future patients or to science. This is also unethical.

In this regard, inconvenience to patients refers to the time that they spend in clinical assessments and to the psychological and physical discomfort that they experience in assessments such as interviews, blood sampling, and other procedures.

ESTIMATING SAMPLE SIZE

So how large should a sample be? In hypothesis testing studies, this is mathematically calculated, conventionally, as the sample size necessary to be 80% certain of identifying a statistically significant outcome should the hypothesis be true for the population, with P for statistical significance set at 0.05. Some investigators power their studies for 90% instead of 80%, and some set the threshold for significance at 0.01 rather than 0.05. Both choices are uncommon because the necessary sample size becomes large, and the study becomes more expensive and more difficult to conduct. Many investigators increase the sample size by 10%, or by whatever proportion they can justify, to compensate for expected dropout, incomplete records, biological specimens that do not meet laboratory requirements for testing, and other study-related problems.

Sample size calculations require assumptions about expected means and standard deviations, or event risks, in different groups; or, upon expected effect sizes. For example, a study may be powered to detect an effect size of 0.5; or a response rate of 60% with drug vs. 40% with placebo.[ 1 ] When no guesstimates or expectations are possible, pilot studies are conducted on a sample that is arbitrary in size but what might be considered reasonable for the field.

The sample size may need to be larger in multicenter studies because of statistical noise (due to variations in patient characteristics, nonspecific treatment characteristics, rating practices, environments, etc. between study centers).[ 2 ] Sample size calculations can be performed manually or using statistical software; online calculators that provide free service can easily be identified by search engines. G*Power is an example of a free, downloadable program for sample size estimation. The manual and tutorial for G*Power can also be downloaded.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ANALYSES

The sample size is calculated for the primary hypothesis of the study. What is the difference between the primary hypothesis, primary outcome and primary outcome measure? As an example, the primary outcome may be a reduction in the severity of depression, the primary outcome measure may be the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the primary hypothesis may be that reduction in MADRS scores is greater with the drug than with placebo. The primary hypothesis is tested in the primary analysis.

Studies almost always have many hypotheses; for example, that the study drug will outperform placebo on measures of depression, suicidality, anxiety, disability and quality of life. The sample size necessary for adequate statistical power to test each of these hypotheses will be different. Because a study can have only one sample size, it can be powered for only one outcome, the primary outcome. Therefore, the study would be either overpowered or underpowered for the other outcomes. These outcomes are therefore called secondary outcomes, and are associated with secondary hypotheses, and are tested in secondary analyses. Secondary analyses are generally considered exploratory because when many hypotheses in a study are each tested at a P < 0.05 level for significance, some may emerge statistically significant by chance (Type 1 or false positive errors).[ 3 ]

INTERPRETING RESULTS

Here is an interesting question. A test of the primary hypothesis yielded a P value of 0.07. Might we conclude that our sample was underpowered for the study and that, had our sample been larger, we would have identified a significant result? No! The reason is that larger samples will more accurately represent the population value, whereas smaller samples could be off the mark in either direction – towards or away from the population value. In this context, readers should also note that no matter how small the P value for an estimate is, the population value of that estimate remains the same.[ 4 ]

On a parting note, it is unlikely that population values will be null. That is, for example, that the response rate to the drug will be exactly the same as that to placebo, or that the correlation between height and age at onset of schizophrenia will be zero. If the sample size is large enough, even such small differences between groups, or trivial correlations, would be detected as being statistically significant. This does not mean that the findings are clinically significant.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimise digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered straight to teams on the ground

Know exactly how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Meet the operating system for experience management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Employee Exit Interviews
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories
• Artificial Intelligence
• Market Research
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Sampling Methods
• How To determine Sample Size

Try Qualtrics for free

Determining sample size: how to make sure you get the correct sample size.

16 min read Sample size can make or break your research project. Here’s how to master the delicate art of choosing the right sample size.

What is sample size?

Sample size is the beating heart of any research project. It’s the invisible force that gives life to your data, making your findings robust, reliable and believable.

Sample size is what determines if you see a broad view or a focus on minute details; the art and science of correctly determining it involves a careful balancing act. Finding an appropriate sample size demands a clear understanding of the level of detail you wish to see in your data and the constraints you might encounter along the way.

Remember, whether you’re studying a small group or an entire population, your findings are only ever as good as the sample you choose.

Free eBook: Empower your market research efforts today

Let’s delve into the world of sampling and uncover the best practices for determining sample size for your research.

How to determine sample size

“How much sample do we need?” is one of the most commonly-asked questions and stumbling points in the early stages of  research design . Finding the right answer to it requires first understanding and answering two other questions:

How important is statistical significance to you and your stakeholders?

What are your real-world constraints.

At the heart of this question is the goal to confidently differentiate between groups, by describing meaningful differences as statistically significant.  Statistical significance  isn’t a difficult concept, but it needs to be considered within the unique context of your research and your measures.

First, you should consider when you deem a difference to be meaningful in your area of research. While the standards for statistical significance are universal, the standards for “meaningful difference” are highly contextual.

For example, a 10% difference between groups might not be enough to merit a change in a marketing campaign for a breakfast cereal, but a 10% difference in efficacy of breast cancer treatments might quite literally be the difference between life and death for hundreds of patients. The exact same magnitude of difference has very little meaning in one context, but has extraordinary meaning in another. You ultimately need to determine the level of precision that will help you make your decision.

Within sampling, the lowest amount of magnification – or smallest sample size – could make the most sense, given the level of precision needed, as well as timeline and budgetary constraints.

If you’re able to detect statistical significance at a difference of 10%, and 10% is a meaningful difference, there is no need for a larger sample size, or higher magnification. However, if the study will only be useful if a significant difference is detected for smaller differences – say, a difference of 5% — the sample size must be larger to accommodate this needed precision. Similarly, if 5% is enough, and 3% is unnecessary, there is no need for a larger statistically significant sample size.

You should also consider how much you expect your responses to vary. When there isn’t a lot of variability in response, it takes a lot more sample to be confident that there are statistically significant differences between groups.

For instance, it will take a lot more sample to find statistically significant differences between groups if you are asking, “What month do you think Christmas is in?” than if you are asking, “How many miles are there between the Earth and the moon?”. In the former, nearly everybody is going to give the exact same answer, while the latter will give a lot of variation in responses. Simply put, when your variables do not have a lot of variance, larger sample sizes make sense.

Statistical significance

The likelihood that the results of a study or experiment did not occur randomly or by chance, but are meaningful and indicate a genuine effect or relationship between variables.

Magnitude of difference

The size or extent of the difference between two or more groups or variables, providing a measure of the effect size or practical significance of the results.

Actionable insights

Valuable findings or conclusions drawn from  data analysis  that can be directly applied or implemented in decision-making processes or strategies to achieve a particular goal or outcome.

It’s crucial to understand the differences between the concepts of “statistical significance”, “magnitude of difference” and “actionable insights” – and how they can influence each other:

• Even if there is a statistically significant difference, it doesn’t mean the magnitude of the difference is large: with a large enough sample, a 3% difference could be statistically significant
• Even if the magnitude of the difference is large, it doesn’t guarantee that this difference is statistically significant: with a small enough sample, an 18% difference might not be statistically significant
• Even if there is a large, statistically significant difference, it doesn’t mean there is a story, or that there are actionable insights

There is no way to guarantee statistically significant differences at the outset of a study – and that is a good thing.

Even with a sample size of a million, there simply may not be any differences – at least, any that could be described as statistically significant. And there are times when a lack of significance is positive.

Imagine if your main competitor ran a multi-million dollar ad campaign in a major city and a huge pre-post study to detect campaign effects, only to discover that there were no statistically significant differences in  brand awareness . This may be terrible news for your competitor, but it would be great news for you.

With Stats iQ™ you can analyze your research results and conduct significance testing

As you determine your sample size, you should consider the real-world constraints to your research.

Factors revolving around timings, budget and target population are among the most common constraints, impacting virtually every study. But by understanding and acknowledging them, you can definitely navigate the practical constraints of your research when pulling together your sample.

Timeline constraints

Gathering a larger sample size naturally requires more time. This is particularly true for elusive audiences, those hard-to-reach groups that require special effort to engage. Your timeline could become an obstacle if it is particularly tight, causing you to rethink your sample size to meet your deadline.

Budgetary constraints

Every sample, whether large or small, inexpensive or costly, signifies a portion of your budget. Samples could be like an open market; some are inexpensive, others are pricey, but all have a price tag attached to them.

Population constraints

Sometimes the individuals or groups you’re interested in are difficult to reach; other times, they’re a part of an extremely small population. These factors can limit your sample size even further.

What’s a good sample size?

A good sample size really depends on the context and goals of the research. In general, a good sample size is one that accurately represents the population and allows for reliable statistical analysis.

Larger sample sizes are typically better because they reduce the likelihood of  sampling errors  and provide a more accurate representation of the population. However, larger sample sizes often increase the impact of practical considerations, like time, budget and the availability of your audience. Ultimately, you should be aiming for a sample size that provides a balance between statistical validity and practical feasibility.

4 tips for choosing the right sample size

Choosing the right sample size is an intricate balancing act, but following these four tips can take away a lot of the complexity.

1) Start with your goal

The foundation of your research is a clearly defined goal. You need to determine what you’re trying to understand or discover, and use your goal to guide your  research methods  – including your sample size.

If your aim is to get a broad overview of a topic, a larger, more diverse sample may be appropriate. However, if your goal is to explore a niche aspect of your subject, a smaller, more targeted sample might serve you better. You should always align your sample size with the objectives of your research.

2) Know that you can’t predict everything

Research is a journey into the unknown. While you may have hypotheses and predictions, it’s important to remember that you can’t foresee every outcome – and this uncertainty should be considered when choosing your sample size.

A larger sample size can help to mitigate some of the risks of unpredictability, providing a more diverse range of data and potentially more accurate results. However, you shouldn’t let the fear of the unknown push you into choosing an impractically large sample size.

3) Plan for a sample that meets your needs and considers your real-life constraints

Every research project operates within certain boundaries – commonly budget, timeline and the nature of the sample itself. When deciding on your sample size, these factors need to be taken into consideration.

Be realistic about what you can achieve with your available resources and time, and always tailor your sample size to fit your constraints – not the other way around.

4) Use best practice guidelines to calculate sample size

There are many established guidelines and formulas that can help you in determining the right sample size.

The easiest way to define your sample size is using a  sample size calculator , or you can use a manual sample size calculation if you want to test your math skills. Cochran’s formula is perhaps the most well known equation for calculating sample size, and widely used when the population is large or unknown.

Beyond the formula, it’s vital to consider the confidence interval, which plays a significant role in determining the appropriate sample size – especially when working with a  random sample  – and the sample proportion. This represents the expected ratio of the target population that has the characteristic or response you’re interested in, and therefore has a big impact on your correct sample size.

If your population is small, or its variance is unknown, there are steps you can still take to determine the right sample size. Common approaches here include conducting a small pilot study to gain initial estimates of the population variance, and taking a conservative approach by assuming a larger variance to ensure a more representative sample size.

Empower your market research

Conducting meaningful research and extracting actionable intelligence are priceless skills in today’s ultra competitive business landscape. It’s never been more crucial to stay ahead of the curve by leveraging the power of market research to identify opportunities, mitigate risks and make informed decisions.

Equip yourself with the tools for success with our essential eBook,  “The ultimate guide to conducting market research” .

With this front-to-back guide, you’ll discover the latest strategies and best practices that are defining effective market research. Learn about practical insights and real-world applications that are demonstrating the value of research in driving business growth and innovation.

Learn how to determine sample size

To choose the correct sample size, you need to consider a few different factors that affect your research, and gain a basic understanding of the statistics involved. You’ll then be able to use a sample size formula to bring everything together and sample confidently, knowing that there is a high probability that your survey is statistically accurate.

The steps that follow are suitable for finding a sample size for continuous data – i.e. data that is counted numerically. It doesn’t apply to categorical data – i.e. put into categories like green, blue, male, female etc.

Stage 1: Consider your sample size variables

Before you can calculate a sample size, you need to determine a few things about the target population and the level of accuracy you need:

1. Population size

How many people are you talking about in total? To find this out, you need to be clear about who does and doesn’t fit into your group. For example, if you want to know about dog owners, you’ll include everyone who has at some point owned at least one dog. (You may include or exclude those who owned a dog in the past, depending on your research goals.) Don’t worry if you’re unable to calculate the exact number. It’s common to have an unknown number or an estimated range.

2. Margin of error (confidence interval)

Errors are inevitable – the question is how much error you’ll allow. The margin of error , AKA confidence interval, is expressed in terms of mean numbers. You can set how much difference you’ll allow between the mean number of your sample and the mean number of your population. If you’ve ever seen a political poll on the news, you’ve seen a confidence interval and how it’s expressed. It will look something like this: “68% of voters said yes to Proposition Z, with a margin of error of +/- 5%.”

3. Confidence level

This is a separate step to the similarly-named confidence interval in step 2. It deals with how confident you want to be that the actual mean falls within your margin of error. The most common confidence intervals are 90% confident, 95% confident, and 99% confident.

4. Standard deviation

This step asks you to estimate how much the responses you receive will vary from each other and from the mean number. A low standard deviation means that all the values will be clustered around the mean number, whereas a high standard deviation means they are spread out across a much wider range with very small and very large outlying figures. Since you haven’t yet run your survey, a safe choice is a standard deviation of .5 which will help make sure your sample size is large enough.

Stage 2: Calculate sample size

Now that you’ve got answers for steps 1 – 4, you’re ready to calculate the sample size you need. This can be done using an  online sample size calculator  or with paper and pencil.

1. Find your Z-score

Next, you need to turn your confidence level into a Z-score. Here are the Z-scores for the most common confidence levels:

• 90% – Z Score = 1.645
• 95% – Z Score = 1.96
• 99% – Z Score = 2.576

If you chose a different confidence level, use this  Z-score table  (a resource owned and hosted by SJSU.edu) to find your score.

2. Use the sample size formula

Plug in your Z-score, standard of deviation, and confidence interval into the  sample size calculator  or use this sample size formula to work it out yourself:

This equation is for an unknown population size or a very large population size. If your population is smaller and known, just  use the sample size calculator.

What does that look like in practice?

Here’s a worked example, assuming you chose a 95% confidence level, .5 standard deviation, and a margin of error (confidence interval) of +/- 5%.

((1.96)2 x .5(.5)) / (.05)2

(3.8416 x .25) / .0025

.9604 / .0025

385 respondents are needed

Voila! You’ve just determined your sample size.

eBook: 2022 Market Research Global Trends Report

Related resources

Convenience sampling 15 min read, non-probability sampling 17 min read, probability sampling 8 min read, stratified random sampling 13 min read, simple random sampling 10 min read, sampling methods 15 min read, sampling and non-sampling errors 10 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

How To Determine Survey Sample Size: A Short Guide

Imagine you want to know how many people in the US drink coffee every morning. If you ask 10 people, that likely isn’t representative of such a large group. 

But if you want to know how many of your 50 coworkers do so, 10 respondents may be enough to get the right idea. 

That is what a survey sample size is in a nutshell. It’s not usually possible to collect feedback from an entire group you are trying to survey. So you have to decide how many people you need answers from to get reliable results.

What is Survey Sample Size?

A survey sample size is the number of participants in a study. In other words, the number of people who responded to your survey.

When conducting any survey, one of your main goals is to get results that are statistically significant. This means enough responses to infer conclusions with confidence.

Sample size usually refers to surveying large populations. So, if all you want to do is find out your 500 customers’ satisfaction, you likely won’t have trouble getting a representative sample.

On the other hand, if you want to see how many marketers in the US are potential customers for you, you’ll have to make do with a statistically significant portion of them.

PS: Check out this persona survey template to figure out where to look for potential customers!

What is a Good Sample Size for a Survey?

When the sample size is too small, you may get a disproportionately small or large number of outliers. This can skew results significantly.

On the other hand, while surveying more people will always get you more accurate results, it is often unfeasible, complex, and expensive. Oftentimes, surveying the entire population is not worth the time and effort.

So, what’s the golden mean?

Many statisticians concur that a sample size of 100 is the minimum you need for meaningful results. If your population is smaller than that, you should aim to survey all of the members. 

The same source states that the maximum number of respondents should be 10% of your population, but it should not exceed 1000. 

For instance, if you have a population of 250,000, 10% would be 25,000. Since this is higher than 1,000, a sample size of 1,000 should be enough to get you statistically significant results.

How to Determine Sample Size for a Survey

Calculating sample size can be made easier with software such as a calculator. Still, let’s have a look at what the process is like behind the scenes.

Sample Size Formula

The survey sample size is usually determined with a take on Slovin’s formula . 

Here is what you’ll need.

“P”, which is your standard deviation

This is how confident you can be that a population will select an answer within a given range. In plain English, this would be how extreme you can expect the responses to be.

A low standard deviation means that you don’t expect your respondents to be extreme. A higher standard deviation will mean that you expect respondents to choose answers from the ends of the spectrum.

Standard deviation is given as a number between 0 and 1. If you are unsure, go with 0.5, which is the exact midway point. Bear in mind, though, that this might make your results more estimated.

“Z”, which represents your “z score”

Your z score is the number of standard deviations a given group is away from the mean. 

Thankfully, you can use a cheat sheet to determine your “z score”, depending on how confident you want to be about your results. 

For example

• 99% desired confidence level would equal a z score of 2.58
• 95% would equal 1.96
• 90% is 1.65
• 85% is 1.44

According to Lisa Sullivan, Professor of Biostatistics

 “a 95% confidence interval means that if we were to take 100 different samples and compute a 95% confidence interval for each sample, then approximately 95 of the 100 confidence intervals will contain the true mean value”.

In layman’s terms, if you calculate your sample size with a z score of 1.96, then if you were to repeat your survey 100 times, you would get the same mean result about 95 times.

“E”, which is your margin of error

The margin of error is basically how sure you need to be that the results are accurate for the entire population. The bigger the margin of error, the less reliable your results are. 

You usually want the margin of error at around 5% or less. This means you can be 95% or more sure that your results are accurate.

For example, let’s say you discover that 85% of your respondents find your customer service effective. If you assumed a 5% margin of error, you must add 5% to either side of the score. 

In essence, you can assume that 80-90% of your customer base is satisfied with your customer service.

The margin of error should be provided in decimal form. Note that the smaller margin of error you want, the larger your sample size will be.

And finally, “N”, which is your population size

The population is all the people whose attitudes or stances you are trying to learn about. 

The population could be anything from all of your customers to all people on Earth. The bigger your population, the bigger your sample will need to be in order to get reliable results.

When you know what your population is, you need to figure out how many people are in that category. 

For instance, if you wanted to get accurate survey results for the entire US, your population size would be 329.5 million (source: World Bank, 2020 ).

If you wanted to run an NPS campaign , you’d consider all of your existing customers. 

Calculation: What Sample Size is Needed for a Survey?

Determining the sample size begins with considering the population in a study.

So, let’s say I wanted to survey a population of 500, and I want to be 5% confident that I will get accurate results 95% of the time. I would need to survey 218 people.

This formula may seem confusing. You can use this spreadsheet I prepared to skip the manual labor. Make sure to copy the spreadsheet and edit only the green fields.

Let’s work with another example. We’ll assume the following values:

• 95% confidence level
• 0.5 standard deviation
• 5% margin of error
• Population of 10,000

Using our spreadsheet, you can see that you should survey at least 370 people. And Survicate is currently working on a sample size calculator, so stay tuned!

Once you have your sample size, you have to account for your response rate . You can expect it to be more or less 20-30%. If you expect to get fewer responses, send the survey to a larger number of people to reach your sample size milestone.

How to Decide Who to Include in Your Sample?

For small to medium-size businesses, the method of getting a sample is usually to send the survey to the entire customer base and hope to get enough responses.

But you may want to target your survey as well. For example, if your previous survey showed you have relatively few NPS detractors , you may want to target them specifically to find out whether their score had changed or to get more details.

Nonetheless, choosing a random sample will usually get you the most reliable results for your population.

What if You Can’t Get Enough Responses?

Sometimes, you just can’t get the number of responses to match that magical sample size you desire. Using best survey tools may help boost your response rate, but what if you still can’t get close to 100?

Calculating sample size in survey research is still important. You can benchmark how many more responses you need and thus, how you can treat incomplete results.

While your results may not be statistically significant, you can still use the feedback to fuel your business decisions. The answers will still be valuable, especially if you make good use of open-ended questions for context.

Send surveys through any channel with Survicate

Generally speaking, most surveyors want the results to be as comprehensive as possible. The more responses you get, the better. The only limiting factors are time and money.

With survey software like Survicate, you can target your audience directly through your website, email, or app, without having to manually reach out or ask bystanders. This cuts down on the required time and effort considerably.

Simply use one of our ready-to-send templates and start gathering feedback . Now, you can take advantage of our 10-day free trial to test all Business plan features with up to 25 survey responses.

We’re also there

Sample Size Calculator

Find out the sample size.

This calculator computes the minimum number of necessary samples to meet the desired statistical constraints.

Find Out the Margin of Error

This calculator gives out the margin of error or confidence interval of observation or survey.

Related Standard Deviation Calculator | Probability Calculator

In statistics, information is often inferred about a population by studying a finite number of individuals from that population, i.e. the population is sampled, and it is assumed that characteristics of the sample are representative of the overall population. For the following, it is assumed that there is a population of individuals where some proportion, p , of the population is distinguishable from the other 1-p in some way; e.g., p may be the proportion of individuals who have brown hair, while the remaining 1-p have black, blond, red, etc. Thus, to estimate p in the population, a sample of n individuals could be taken from the population, and the sample proportion, p̂ , calculated for sampled individuals who have brown hair. Unfortunately, unless the full population is sampled, the estimate p̂ most likely won't equal the true value p , since p̂ suffers from sampling noise, i.e. it depends on the particular individuals that were sampled. However, sampling statistics can be used to calculate what are called confidence intervals, which are an indication of how close the estimate p̂ is to the true value p .

Statistics of a Random Sample

The uncertainty in a given random sample (namely that is expected that the proportion estimate, p̂ , is a good, but not perfect, approximation for the true proportion p ) can be summarized by saying that the estimate p̂ is normally distributed with mean p and variance p(1-p)/n . For an explanation of why the sample estimate is normally distributed, study the Central Limit Theorem . As defined below, confidence level, confidence intervals, and sample sizes are all calculated with respect to this sampling distribution. In short, the confidence interval gives an interval around p in which an estimate p̂ is "likely" to be. The confidence level gives just how "likely" this is – e.g., a 95% confidence level indicates that it is expected that an estimate p̂ lies in the confidence interval for 95% of the random samples that could be taken. The confidence interval depends on the sample size, n (the variance of the sample distribution is inversely proportional to n , meaning that the estimate gets closer to the true proportion as n increases); thus, an acceptable error rate in the estimate can also be set, called the margin of error, ε , and solved for the sample size required for the chosen confidence interval to be smaller than e ; a calculation known as "sample size calculation."

Confidence Level

The confidence level is a measure of certainty regarding how accurately a sample reflects the population being studied within a chosen confidence interval. The most commonly used confidence levels are 90%, 95%, and 99%, which each have their own corresponding z-scores (which can be found using an equation or widely available tables like the one provided below) based on the chosen confidence level. Note that using z-scores assumes that the sampling distribution is normally distributed, as described above in "Statistics of a Random Sample." Given that an experiment or survey is repeated many times, the confidence level essentially indicates the percentage of the time that the resulting interval found from repeated tests will contain the true result.

Confidence Interval

In statistics, a confidence interval is an estimated range of likely values for a population parameter, for example, 40 ± 2 or 40 ± 5%. Taking the commonly used 95% confidence level as an example, if the same population were sampled multiple times, and interval estimates made on each occasion, in approximately 95% of the cases, the true population parameter would be contained within the interval. Note that the 95% probability refers to the reliability of the estimation procedure and not to a specific interval. Once an interval is calculated, it either contains or does not contain the population parameter of interest. Some factors that affect the width of a confidence interval include: size of the sample, confidence level, and variability within the sample.

There are different equations that can be used to calculate confidence intervals depending on factors such as whether the standard deviation is known or smaller samples (n<30) are involved, among others. The calculator provided on this page calculates the confidence interval for a proportion and uses the following equations:

Within statistics, a population is a set of events or elements that have some relevance regarding a given question or experiment. It can refer to an existing group of objects, systems, or even a hypothetical group of objects. Most commonly, however, population is used to refer to a group of people, whether they are the number of employees in a company, number of people within a certain age group of some geographic area, or number of students in a university's library at any given time.

It is important to note that the equation needs to be adjusted when considering a finite population, as shown above. The (N-n)/(N-1) term in the finite population equation is referred to as the finite population correction factor, and is necessary because it cannot be assumed that all individuals in a sample are independent. For example, if the study population involves 10 people in a room with ages ranging from 1 to 100, and one of those chosen has an age of 100, the next person chosen is more likely to have a lower age. The finite population correction factor accounts for factors such as these. Refer below for an example of calculating a confidence interval with an unlimited population.

EX: Given that 120 people work at Company Q, 85 of which drink coffee daily, find the 99% confidence interval of the true proportion of people who drink coffee at Company Q on a daily basis.

Sample Size Calculation

Sample size is a statistical concept that involves determining the number of observations or replicates (the repetition of an experimental condition used to estimate the variability of a phenomenon) that should be included in a statistical sample. It is an important aspect of any empirical study requiring that inferences be made about a population based on a sample. Essentially, sample sizes are used to represent parts of a population chosen for any given survey or experiment. To carry out this calculation, set the margin of error, ε , or the maximum distance desired for the sample estimate to deviate from the true value. To do this, use the confidence interval equation above, but set the term to the right of the ± sign equal to the margin of error, and solve for the resulting equation for sample size, n . The equation for calculating sample size is shown below.

EX: Determine the sample size necessary to estimate the proportion of people shopping at a supermarket in the U.S. that identify as vegan with 95% confidence, and a margin of error of 5%. Assume a population proportion of 0.5, and unlimited population size. Remember that z for a 95% confidence level is 1.96. Refer to the table provided in the confidence level section for z scores of a range of confidence levels.

Thus, for the case above, a sample size of at least 385 people would be necessary. In the above example, some studies estimate that approximately 6% of the U.S. population identify as vegan, so rather than assuming 0.5 for p̂ , 0.06 would be used. If it was known that 40 out of 500 people that entered a particular supermarket on a given day were vegan, p̂ would then be 0.08.

Dissertation surveys: Questions, examples, and best practices

Collect data for your dissertation with little effort and great results.

Dissertation surveys are one of the most powerful tools to get valuable insights and data for the culmination of your research. However, it’s one of the most stressful and time-consuming tasks you need to do. You want useful data from a representative sample that you can analyze and present as part of your dissertation. At SurveyPlanet, we’re committed to making it as easy and stress-free as possible to get the most out of your study.

With an intuitive and user-friendly design, our templates and premade questions can be your allies while creating a survey for your dissertation. Explore all the options we offer by simply signing up for an account—and leave the stress behind.

How to write dissertation survey questions

The first thing to do is to figure out which group of people is relevant for your study. When you know that, you’ll also be able to adjust the survey and write questions that will get the best results.

The next step is to write down the goal of your research and define it properly. Online surveys are one of the best and most inexpensive ways to reach respondents and achieve your goal.

Before writing any questions, think about how you’ll analyze the results. You don’t want to write and distribute a survey without keeping how to report your findings in mind. When your thesis questionnaire is out in the real world, it’s too late to conclude that the data you’re collecting might not be any good for assessment. Because of that, you need to create questions with analysis in mind.

You may find our five survey analysis tips for better insights helpful. We recommend reading it before analyzing your results.

Once you understand the parameters of your representative sample, goals, and analysis methodology, then it’s time to think about distribution. Survey distribution may feel like a headache, but you’ll find that many people will gladly participate.

Find communities where your targeted group hangs out and share the link to your survey with them. If you’re not sure how large your research sample should be, gauge it easily with the survey sample size calculator.

Need help with writing survey questions? Read our guide on well-written examples of good survey questions .

Dissertation survey examples

Whatever field you’re studying, we’re sure the following questions will prove useful when crafting your own.

At the beginning of every questionnaire, inform respondents of your topic and provide a consent form. After that, start with questions like:

• Please select your gender:
• What is the highest educational level you’ve completed?
• High school
• Bachelor degree
• Master’s degree
• On a scale of 1-7, how satisfied are you with your current job?
• Please rate the following statements:
• I always wait for people to text me first.
• Strongly Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Strongly agree
• My friends always complain that I never invite them anywhere.
• I prefer spending time alone.
• Rank which personality traits are most important when choosing a partner. Rank 1 - 7, where 1 is the most and 7 is the least important.
• Flexibility
• Independence
• How openly do you share feelings with your partner?
• Almost never
• Almost always
• In the last two weeks, how often did you experience headaches?

Dissertation survey best practices

There are a lot of DOs and DON’Ts you should keep in mind when conducting any survey, especially for your dissertation. To get valuable data from your targeted sample, follow these best practices:

Use the consent form.

The consent form is a must when distributing a research questionnaire. A respondent has to know how you’ll use their answers and that the survey is anonymous.

Avoid leading and double-barreled questions

Leading and double-barreled questions will produce inconclusive results—and you don’t want that. A question such as: “Do you like to watch TV and play video games?” is double-barreled because it has two variables.

On the other hand, leading questions such as “On a scale from 1-10 how would you rate the amazing experience with our customer support?” influence respondents to answer in a certain way, which produces biased results.

Use easy and straightforward language and questions

Don’t use terms and professional jargon that respondents won’t understand. Take into consideration their educational level and demographic traits and use easy-to-understand language when writing questions.

Mix close-ended and open-ended questions

Too many open-ended questions will annoy respondents. Also, analyzing the responses is harder. Use more close-ended questions for the best results and only a few open-ended ones.

Strategically use different types of responses

Likert scale, multiple-choice, and ranking are all types of responses you can use to collect data. But some response types suit some questions better. Make sure to strategically fit questions with response types.

Ensure that data privacy is a priority

Make sure to use an online survey tool that has SSL encryption and secure data processing. You don’t want to risk all your hard work going to waste because of poorly managed data security. Ensure that you only collect data that’s relevant to your dissertation survey and leave out any questions (such as name) that can identify the respondents.

Create dissertation questionnaires with SurveyPlanet

Overall, survey methodology is a great way to find research participants for your research study. You have all the tools required for creating a survey for a dissertation with SurveyPlanet—you only need to sign up . With powerful features like question branching, custom formatting, multiple languages, image choice questions, and easy export you will find everything needed to create, distribute, and analyze a dissertation survey.

Happy data gathering!

Sign up now

Free unlimited surveys, questions and responses.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 21 November 2018

Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

• Konstantina Vasileiou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5047-3920 1 ,
• Julie Barnett 1 ,
• Susan Thorpe 2 &
• Terry Young 3  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  18 , Article number:  148 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

734k Accesses

1165 Citations

172 Altmetric

Metrics details

Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields.

A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques.

Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms.

Conclusions

We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy . Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.

Peer Review reports

Sample adequacy in qualitative inquiry pertains to the appropriateness of the sample composition and size . It is an important consideration in evaluations of the quality and trustworthiness of much qualitative research [ 1 ] and is implicated – particularly for research that is situated within a post-positivist tradition and retains a degree of commitment to realist ontological premises – in appraisals of validity and generalizability [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Samples in qualitative research tend to be small in order to support the depth of case-oriented analysis that is fundamental to this mode of inquiry [ 5 ]. Additionally, qualitative samples are purposive, that is, selected by virtue of their capacity to provide richly-textured information, relevant to the phenomenon under investigation. As a result, purposive sampling [ 6 , 7 ] – as opposed to probability sampling employed in quantitative research – selects ‘information-rich’ cases [ 8 ]. Indeed, recent research demonstrates the greater efficiency of purposive sampling compared to random sampling in qualitative studies [ 9 ], supporting related assertions long put forward by qualitative methodologists.

Sample size in qualitative research has been the subject of enduring discussions [ 4 , 10 , 11 ]. Whilst the quantitative research community has established relatively straightforward statistics-based rules to set sample sizes precisely, the intricacies of qualitative sample size determination and assessment arise from the methodological, theoretical, epistemological, and ideological pluralism that characterises qualitative inquiry (for a discussion focused on the discipline of psychology see [ 12 ]). This mitigates against clear-cut guidelines, invariably applied. Despite these challenges, various conceptual developments have sought to address this issue, with guidance and principles [ 4 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], and more recently, an evidence-based approach to sample size determination seeks to ground the discussion empirically [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].

Focusing on single-interview-per-participant qualitative designs, the present study aims to further contribute to the dialogue of sample size in qualitative research by offering empirical evidence around justification practices associated with sample size. We next review the existing conceptual and empirical literature on sample size determination.

Sample size in qualitative research: Conceptual developments and empirical investigations

Qualitative research experts argue that there is no straightforward answer to the question of ‘how many’ and that sample size is contingent on a number of factors relating to epistemological, methodological and practical issues [ 36 ]. Sandelowski [ 4 ] recommends that qualitative sample sizes are large enough to allow the unfolding of a ‘new and richly textured understanding’ of the phenomenon under study, but small enough so that the ‘deep, case-oriented analysis’ (p. 183) of qualitative data is not precluded. Morse [ 11 ] posits that the more useable data are collected from each person, the fewer participants are needed. She invites researchers to take into account parameters, such as the scope of study, the nature of topic (i.e. complexity, accessibility), the quality of data, and the study design. Indeed, the level of structure of questions in qualitative interviewing has been found to influence the richness of data generated [ 37 ], and so, requires attention; empirical research shows that open questions, which are asked later on in the interview, tend to produce richer data [ 37 ].

Beyond such guidance, specific numerical recommendations have also been proffered, often based on experts’ experience of qualitative research. For example, Green and Thorogood [ 38 ] maintain that the experience of most qualitative researchers conducting an interview-based study with a fairly specific research question is that little new information is generated after interviewing 20 people or so belonging to one analytically relevant participant ‘category’ (pp. 102–104). Ritchie et al. [ 39 ] suggest that studies employing individual interviews conduct no more than 50 interviews so that researchers are able to manage the complexity of the analytic task. Similarly, Britten [ 40 ] notes that large interview studies will often comprise of 50 to 60 people. Experts have also offered numerical guidelines tailored to different theoretical and methodological traditions and specific research approaches, e.g. grounded theory, phenomenology [ 11 , 41 ]. More recently, a quantitative tool was proposed [ 42 ] to support a priori sample size determination based on estimates of the prevalence of themes in the population. Nevertheless, this more formulaic approach raised criticisms relating to assumptions about the conceptual [ 43 ] and ontological status of ‘themes’ [ 44 ] and the linearity ascribed to the processes of sampling, data collection and data analysis [ 45 ].

In terms of principles, Lincoln and Guba [ 17 ] proposed that sample size determination be guided by the criterion of informational redundancy , that is, sampling can be terminated when no new information is elicited by sampling more units. Following the logic of informational comprehensiveness Malterud et al. [ 18 ] introduced the concept of information power as a pragmatic guiding principle, suggesting that the more information power the sample provides, the smaller the sample size needs to be, and vice versa.

Undoubtedly, the most widely used principle for determining sample size and evaluating its sufficiency is that of saturation . The notion of saturation originates in grounded theory [ 15 ] – a qualitative methodological approach explicitly concerned with empirically-derived theory development – and is inextricably linked to theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling describes an iterative process of data collection, data analysis and theory development whereby data collection is governed by emerging theory rather than predefined characteristics of the population. Grounded theory saturation (often called theoretical saturation) concerns the theoretical categories – as opposed to data – that are being developed and becomes evident when ‘gathering fresh data no longer sparks new theoretical insights, nor reveals new properties of your core theoretical categories’ [ 46 p. 113]. Saturation in grounded theory, therefore, does not equate to the more common focus on data repetition and moves beyond a singular focus on sample size as the justification of sampling adequacy [ 46 , 47 ]. Sample size in grounded theory cannot be determined a priori as it is contingent on the evolving theoretical categories.

Saturation – often under the terms of ‘data’ or ‘thematic’ saturation – has diffused into several qualitative communities beyond its origins in grounded theory. Alongside the expansion of its meaning, being variously equated with ‘no new data’, ‘no new themes’, and ‘no new codes’, saturation has emerged as the ‘gold standard’ in qualitative inquiry [ 2 , 26 ]. Nevertheless, and as Morse [ 48 ] asserts, whilst saturation is the most frequently invoked ‘guarantee of qualitative rigor’, ‘it is the one we know least about’ (p. 587). Certainly researchers caution that saturation is less applicable to, or appropriate for, particular types of qualitative research (e.g. conversation analysis, [ 49 ]; phenomenological research, [ 50 ]) whilst others reject the concept altogether [ 19 , 51 ].

Methodological studies in this area aim to provide guidance about saturation and develop a practical application of processes that ‘operationalise’ and evidence saturation. Guest, Bunce, and Johnson [ 26 ] analysed 60 interviews and found that saturation of themes was reached by the twelfth interview. They noted that their sample was relatively homogeneous, their research aims focused, so studies of more heterogeneous samples and with a broader scope would be likely to need a larger size to achieve saturation. Extending the enquiry to multi-site, cross-cultural research, Hagaman and Wutich [ 28 ] showed that sample sizes of 20 to 40 interviews were required to achieve data saturation of meta-themes that cut across research sites. In a theory-driven content analysis, Francis et al. [ 25 ] reached data saturation at the 17th interview for all their pre-determined theoretical constructs. The authors further proposed two main principles upon which specification of saturation be based: (a) researchers should a priori specify an initial analysis sample (e.g. 10 interviews) which will be used for the first round of analysis and (b) a stopping criterion , that is, a number of interviews (e.g. 3) that needs to be further conducted, the analysis of which will not yield any new themes or ideas. For greater transparency, Francis et al. [ 25 ] recommend that researchers present cumulative frequency graphs supporting their judgment that saturation was achieved. A comparative method for themes saturation (CoMeTS) has also been suggested [ 23 ] whereby the findings of each new interview are compared with those that have already emerged and if it does not yield any new theme, the ‘saturated terrain’ is assumed to have been established. Because the order in which interviews are analysed can influence saturation thresholds depending on the richness of the data, Constantinou et al. [ 23 ] recommend reordering and re-analysing interviews to confirm saturation. Hennink, Kaiser and Marconi’s [ 29 ] methodological study sheds further light on the problem of specifying and demonstrating saturation. Their analysis of interview data showed that code saturation (i.e. the point at which no additional issues are identified) was achieved at 9 interviews, but meaning saturation (i.e. the point at which no further dimensions, nuances, or insights of issues are identified) required 16–24 interviews. Although breadth can be achieved relatively soon, especially for high-prevalence and concrete codes, depth requires additional data, especially for codes of a more conceptual nature.

Critiquing the concept of saturation, Nelson [ 19 ] proposes five conceptual depth criteria in grounded theory projects to assess the robustness of the developing theory: (a) theoretical concepts should be supported by a wide range of evidence drawn from the data; (b) be demonstrably part of a network of inter-connected concepts; (c) demonstrate subtlety; (d) resonate with existing literature; and (e) can be successfully submitted to tests of external validity.

Other work has sought to examine practices of sample size reporting and sufficiency assessment across a range of disciplinary fields and research domains, from nutrition [ 34 ] and health education [ 32 ], to education and the health sciences [ 22 , 27 ], information systems [ 30 ], organisation and workplace studies [ 33 ], human computer interaction [ 21 ], and accounting studies [ 24 ]. Others investigated PhD qualitative studies [ 31 ] and grounded theory studies [ 35 ]. Incomplete and imprecise sample size reporting is commonly pinpointed by these investigations whilst assessment and justifications of sample size sufficiency are even more sporadic.

Sobal [ 34 ] examined the sample size of qualitative studies published in the Journal of Nutrition Education over a period of 30 years. Studies that employed individual interviews ( n  = 30) had an average sample size of 45 individuals and none of these explicitly reported whether their sample size sought and/or attained saturation. A minority of articles discussed how sample-related limitations (with the latter most often concerning the type of sample, rather than the size) limited generalizability. A further systematic analysis [ 32 ] of health education research over 20 years demonstrated that interview-based studies averaged 104 participants (range 2 to 720 interviewees). However, 40% did not report the number of participants. An examination of 83 qualitative interview studies in leading information systems journals [ 30 ] indicated little defence of sample sizes on the basis of recommendations by qualitative methodologists, prior relevant work, or the criterion of saturation. Rather, sample size seemed to correlate with factors such as the journal of publication or the region of study (US vs Europe vs Asia). These results led the authors to call for more rigor in determining and reporting sample size in qualitative information systems research and to recommend optimal sample size ranges for grounded theory (i.e. 20–30 interviews) and single case (i.e. 15–30 interviews) projects.

Similarly, fewer than 10% of articles in organisation and workplace studies provided a sample size justification relating to existing recommendations by methodologists, prior relevant work, or saturation [ 33 ], whilst only 17% of focus groups studies in health-related journals provided an explanation of sample size (i.e. number of focus groups), with saturation being the most frequently invoked argument, followed by published sample size recommendations and practical reasons [ 22 ]. The notion of saturation was also invoked by 11 out of the 51 most highly cited studies that Guetterman [ 27 ] reviewed in the fields of education and health sciences, of which six were grounded theory studies, four phenomenological and one a narrative inquiry. Finally, analysing 641 interview-based articles in accounting, Dai et al. [ 24 ] called for more rigor since a significant minority of studies did not report precise sample size.

Despite increasing attention to rigor in qualitative research (e.g. [ 52 ]) and more extensive methodological and analytical disclosures that seek to validate qualitative work [ 24 ], sample size reporting and sufficiency assessment remain inconsistent and partial, if not absent, across a range of research domains.

Objectives of the present study

The present study sought to enrich existing systematic analyses of the customs and practices of sample size reporting and justification by focusing on qualitative research relating to health. Additionally, this study attempted to expand previous empirical investigations by examining how qualitative sample sizes are characterised and discussed in academic narratives. Qualitative health research is an inter-disciplinary field that due to its affiliation with medical sciences, often faces views and positions reflective of a quantitative ethos. Thus qualitative health research constitutes an emblematic case that may help to unfold underlying philosophical and methodological differences across the scientific community that are crystallised in considerations of sample size. The present research, therefore, incorporates a comparative element on the basis of three different disciplines engaging with qualitative health research: medicine, psychology, and sociology. We chose to focus our analysis on single-per-participant-interview designs as this not only presents a popular and widespread methodological choice in qualitative health research, but also as the method where consideration of sample size – defined as the number of interviewees – is particularly salient.

Study design

A structured search for articles reporting cross-sectional, interview-based qualitative studies was carried out and eligible reports were systematically reviewed and analysed employing both quantitative and qualitative analytic techniques.

We selected journals which (a) follow a peer review process, (b) are considered high quality and influential in their field as reflected in journal metrics, and (c) are receptive to, and publish, qualitative research (Additional File  1 presents the journals’ editorial positions in relation to qualitative research and sample considerations where available). Three health-related journals were chosen, each representing a different disciplinary field; the British Medical Journal (BMJ) representing medicine, the British Journal of Health Psychology (BJHP) representing psychology, and the Sociology of Health & Illness (SHI) representing sociology.

Search strategy to identify studies

Employing the search function of each individual journal, we used the terms ‘interview*’ AND ‘qualitative’ and limited the results to articles published between 1 January 2003 and 22 September 2017 (i.e. a 15-year review period).

Eligibility criteria

To be eligible for inclusion in the review, the article had to report a cross-sectional study design. Longitudinal studies were thus excluded whilst studies conducted within a broader research programme (e.g. interview studies nested in a trial, as part of a broader ethnography, as part of a longitudinal research) were included if they reported only single-time qualitative interviews. The method of data collection had to be individual, synchronous qualitative interviews (i.e. group interviews, structured interviews and e-mail interviews over a period of time were excluded), and the data had to be analysed qualitatively (i.e. studies that quantified their qualitative data were excluded). Mixed method studies and articles reporting more than one qualitative method of data collection (e.g. individual interviews and focus groups) were excluded. Figure  1 , a PRISMA flow diagram [ 53 ], shows the number of: articles obtained from the searches and screened; papers assessed for eligibility; and articles included in the review (Additional File  2 provides the full list of articles included in the review and their unique identifying code – e.g. BMJ01, BJHP02, SHI03). One review author (KV) assessed the eligibility of all papers identified from the searches. When in doubt, discussions about retaining or excluding articles were held between KV and JB in regular meetings, and decisions were jointly made.

PRISMA flow diagram

Data extraction and analysis

A data extraction form was developed (see Additional File  3 ) recording three areas of information: (a) information about the article (e.g. authors, title, journal, year of publication etc.); (b) information about the aims of the study, the sample size and any justification for this, the participant characteristics, the sampling technique and any sample-related observations or comments made by the authors; and (c) information about the method or technique(s) of data analysis, the number of researchers involved in the analysis, the potential use of software, and any discussion around epistemological considerations. The Abstract, Methods and Discussion (and/or Conclusion) sections of each article were examined by one author (KV) who extracted all the relevant information. This was directly copied from the articles and, when appropriate, comments, notes and initial thoughts were written down.

To examine the kinds of sample size justifications provided by articles, an inductive content analysis [ 54 ] was initially conducted. On the basis of this analysis, the categories that expressed qualitatively different sample size justifications were developed.

We also extracted or coded quantitative data regarding the following aspects:

Journal and year of publication

Number of interviews

Number of participants

Presence of sample size justification(s) (Yes/No)

Presence of a particular sample size justification category (Yes/No), and

Number of sample size justifications provided

Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to explore these data.

A thematic analysis [ 55 ] was then performed on all scientific narratives that discussed or commented on the sample size of the study. These narratives were evident both in papers that justified their sample size and those that did not. To identify these narratives, in addition to the methods sections, the discussion sections of the reviewed articles were also examined and relevant data were extracted and analysed.

In total, 214 articles – 21 in the BMJ, 53 in the BJHP and 140 in the SHI – were eligible for inclusion in the review. Table  1 provides basic information about the sample sizes – measured in number of interviews – of the studies reviewed across the three journals. Figure  2 depicts the number of eligible articles published each year per journal.

The publication of qualitative studies in the BMJ was significantly reduced from 2012 onwards and this appears to coincide with the initiation of the BMJ Open to which qualitative studies were possibly directed.

Pairwise comparisons following a significant Kruskal-Wallis Footnote 2 test indicated that the studies published in the BJHP had significantly ( p  < .001) smaller samples sizes than those published either in the BMJ or the SHI. Sample sizes of BMJ and SHI articles did not differ significantly from each other.

Sample size justifications: Results from the quantitative and qualitative content analysis

Ten (47.6%) of the 21 BMJ studies, 26 (49.1%) of the 53 BJHP papers and 24 (17.1%) of the 140 SHI articles provided some sort of sample size justification. As shown in Table  2 , the majority of articles which justified their sample size provided one justification (70% of articles); fourteen studies (25%) provided two distinct justifications; one study (1.7%) gave three justifications and two studies (3.3%) expressed four distinct justifications.

There was no association between the number of interviews (i.e. sample size) conducted and the provision of a justification (rpb = .054, p  = .433). Within journals, Mann-Whitney tests indicated that sample sizes of ‘justifying’ and ‘non-justifying’ articles in the BMJ and SHI did not differ significantly from each other. In the BJHP, ‘justifying’ articles ( Mean rank  = 31.3) had significantly larger sample sizes than ‘non-justifying’ studies ( Mean rank  = 22.7; U = 237.000, p  < .05).

There was a significant association between the journal a paper was published in and the provision of a justification (χ 2 (2) = 23.83, p  < .001). BJHP studies provided a sample size justification significantly more often than would be expected ( z  = 2.9); SHI studies significantly less often ( z  = − 2.4). If an article was published in the BJHP, the odds of providing a justification were 4.8 times higher than if published in the SHI. Similarly if published in the BMJ, the odds of a study justifying its sample size were 4.5 times higher than in the SHI.

The qualitative content analysis of the scientific narratives identified eleven different sample size justifications. These are described below and illustrated with excerpts from relevant articles. By way of a summary, the frequency with which these were deployed across the three journals is indicated in Table  3 .

Saturation was the most commonly invoked principle (55.4% of all justifications) deployed by studies across all three journals to justify the sufficiency of their sample size. In the BMJ, two studies claimed that they achieved data saturation (BMJ17; BMJ18) and one article referred descriptively to achieving saturation without explicitly using the term (BMJ13). Interestingly, BMJ13 included data in the analysis beyond the point of saturation in search of ‘unusual/deviant observations’ and with a view to establishing findings consistency.

Thirty three women were approached to take part in the interview study. Twenty seven agreed and 21 (aged 21–64, median 40) were interviewed before data saturation was reached (one tape failure meant that 20 interviews were available for analysis). (BMJ17). No new topics were identified following analysis of approximately two thirds of the interviews; however, all interviews were coded in order to develop a better understanding of how characteristic the views and reported behaviours were, and also to collect further examples of unusual/deviant observations. (BMJ13).

Two articles reported pre-determining their sample size with a view to achieving data saturation (BMJ08 – see extract in section In line with existing research ; BMJ15 – see extract in section Pragmatic considerations ) without further specifying if this was achieved. One paper claimed theoretical saturation (BMJ06) conceived as being when “no further recurring themes emerging from the analysis” whilst another study argued that although the analytic categories were highly saturated, it was not possible to determine whether theoretical saturation had been achieved (BMJ04). One article (BMJ18) cited a reference to support its position on saturation.

In the BJHP, six articles claimed that they achieved data saturation (BJHP21; BJHP32; BJHP39; BJHP48; BJHP49; BJHP52) and one article stated that, given their sample size and the guidelines for achieving data saturation, it anticipated that saturation would be attained (BJHP50).

Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached, defined as the point at which no new themes emerged. (BJHP48). It has previously been recommended that qualitative studies require a minimum sample size of at least 12 to reach data saturation (Clarke & Braun, 2013; Fugard & Potts, 2014; Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006) Therefore, a sample of 13 was deemed sufficient for the qualitative analysis and scale of this study. (BJHP50).

Two studies argued that they achieved thematic saturation (BJHP28 – see extract in section Sample size guidelines ; BJHP31) and one (BJHP30) article, explicitly concerned with theory development and deploying theoretical sampling, claimed both theoretical and data saturation.

The final sample size was determined by thematic saturation, the point at which new data appears to no longer contribute to the findings due to repetition of themes and comments by participants (Morse, 1995). At this point, data generation was terminated. (BJHP31).

Five studies argued that they achieved (BJHP05; BJHP33; BJHP40; BJHP13 – see extract in section Pragmatic considerations ) or anticipated (BJHP46) saturation without any further specification of the term. BJHP17 referred descriptively to a state of achieved saturation without specifically using the term. Saturation of coding , but not saturation of themes, was claimed to have been reached by one article (BJHP18). Two articles explicitly stated that they did not achieve saturation; instead claiming a level of theme completeness (BJHP27) or that themes being replicated (BJHP53) were arguments for sufficiency of their sample size.

Furthermore, data collection ceased on pragmatic grounds rather than at the point when saturation point was reached. Despite this, although nuances within sub-themes were still emerging towards the end of data analysis, the themes themselves were being replicated indicating a level of completeness. (BJHP27).

Finally, one article criticised and explicitly renounced the notion of data saturation claiming that, on the contrary, the criterion of theoretical sufficiency determined its sample size (BJHP16).

According to the original Grounded Theory texts, data collection should continue until there are no new discoveries ( i.e. , ‘data saturation’; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). However, recent revisions of this process have discussed how it is rare that data collection is an exhaustive process and researchers should rely on how well their data are able to create a sufficient theoretical account or ‘theoretical sufficiency’ (Dey, 1999). For this study, it was decided that theoretical sufficiency would guide recruitment, rather than looking for data saturation. (BJHP16).

Ten out of the 20 BJHP articles that employed the argument of saturation used one or more citations relating to this principle.

In the SHI, one article (SHI01) claimed that it achieved category saturation based on authors’ judgment.

This number was not fixed in advance, but was guided by the sampling strategy and the judgement, based on the analysis of the data, of the point at which ‘category saturation’ was achieved. (SHI01).

Three articles described a state of achieved saturation without using the term or specifying what sort of saturation they had achieved (i.e. data, theoretical, thematic saturation) (SHI04; SHI13; SHI30) whilst another four articles explicitly stated that they achieved saturation (SHI100; SHI125; SHI136; SHI137). Two papers stated that they achieved data saturation (SHI73 – see extract in section Sample size guidelines ; SHI113), two claimed theoretical saturation (SHI78; SHI115) and two referred to achieving thematic saturation (SHI87; SHI139) or to saturated themes (SHI29; SHI50).

Recruitment and analysis ceased once theoretical saturation was reached in the categories described below (Lincoln and Guba 1985). (SHI115). The respondents’ quotes drawn on below were chosen as representative, and illustrate saturated themes. (SHI50).

One article stated that thematic saturation was anticipated with its sample size (SHI94). Briefly referring to the difficulty in pinpointing achievement of theoretical saturation, SHI32 (see extract in section Richness and volume of data ) defended the sufficiency of its sample size on the basis of “the high degree of consensus [that] had begun to emerge among those interviewed”, suggesting that information from interviews was being replicated. Finally, SHI112 (see extract in section Further sampling to check findings consistency ) argued that it achieved saturation of discursive patterns . Seven of the 19 SHI articles cited references to support their position on saturation (see Additional File  4 for the full list of citations used by articles to support their position on saturation across the three journals).

Overall, it is clear that the concept of saturation encompassed a wide range of variants expressed in terms such as saturation, data saturation, thematic saturation, theoretical saturation, category saturation, saturation of coding, saturation of discursive themes, theme completeness. It is noteworthy, however, that although these various claims were sometimes supported with reference to the literature, they were not evidenced in relation to the study at hand.

Pragmatic considerations

The determination of sample size on the basis of pragmatic considerations was the second most frequently invoked argument (9.6% of all justifications) appearing in all three journals. In the BMJ, one article (BMJ15) appealed to pragmatic reasons, relating to time constraints and the difficulty to access certain study populations, to justify the determination of its sample size.

On the basis of the researchers’ previous experience and the literature, [30, 31] we estimated that recruitment of 15–20 patients at each site would achieve data saturation when data from each site were analysed separately. We set a target of seven to 10 caregivers per site because of time constraints and the anticipated difficulty of accessing caregivers at some home based care services. This gave a target sample of 75–100 patients and 35–50 caregivers overall. (BMJ15).

In the BJHP, four articles mentioned pragmatic considerations relating to time or financial constraints (BJHP27 – see extract in section Saturation ; BJHP53), the participant response rate (BJHP13), and the fixed (and thus limited) size of the participant pool from which interviewees were sampled (BJHP18).

We had aimed to continue interviewing until we had reached saturation, a point whereby further data collection would yield no further themes. In practice, the number of individuals volunteering to participate dictated when recruitment into the study ceased (15 young people, 15 parents). Nonetheless, by the last few interviews, significant repetition of concepts was occurring, suggesting ample sampling. (BJHP13).

Finally, three SHI articles explained their sample size with reference to practical aspects: time constraints and project manageability (SHI56), limited availability of respondents and project resources (SHI131), and time constraints (SHI113).

The size of the sample was largely determined by the availability of respondents and resources to complete the study. Its composition reflected, as far as practicable, our interest in how contextual factors (for example, gender relations and ethnicity) mediated the illness experience. (SHI131).

Qualities of the analysis

This sample size justification (8.4% of all justifications) was mainly employed by BJHP articles and referred to an intensive, idiographic and/or latently focused analysis, i.e. that moved beyond description. More specifically, six articles defended their sample size on the basis of an intensive analysis of transcripts and/or the idiographic focus of the study/analysis. Four of these papers (BJHP02; BJHP19; BJHP24; BJHP47) adopted an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach.

The current study employed a sample of 10 in keeping with the aim of exploring each participant’s account (Smith et al. , 1999). (BJHP19).

BJHP47 explicitly renounced the notion of saturation within an IPA approach. The other two BJHP articles conducted thematic analysis (BJHP34; BJHP38). The level of analysis – i.e. latent as opposed to a more superficial descriptive analysis – was also invoked as a justification by BJHP38 alongside the argument of an intensive analysis of individual transcripts

The resulting sample size was at the lower end of the range of sample sizes employed in thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013). This was in order to enable significant reflection, dialogue, and time on each transcript and was in line with the more latent level of analysis employed, to identify underlying ideas, rather than a more superficial descriptive analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). (BJHP38).

Finally, one BMJ paper (BMJ21) defended its sample size with reference to the complexity of the analytic task.

We stopped recruitment when we reached 30–35 interviews, owing to the depth and duration of interviews, richness of data, and complexity of the analytical task. (BMJ21).

Meet sampling requirements

Meeting sampling requirements (7.2% of all justifications) was another argument employed by two BMJ and four SHI articles to explain their sample size. Achieving maximum variation sampling in terms of specific interviewee characteristics determined and explained the sample size of two BMJ studies (BMJ02; BMJ16 – see extract in section Meet research design requirements ).

Recruitment continued until sampling frame requirements were met for diversity in age, sex, ethnicity, frequency of attendance, and health status. (BMJ02).

Regarding the SHI articles, two papers explained their numbers on the basis of their sampling strategy (SHI01- see extract in section Saturation ; SHI23) whilst sampling requirements that would help attain sample heterogeneity in terms of a particular characteristic of interest was cited by one paper (SHI127).

The combination of matching the recruitment sites for the quantitative research and the additional purposive criteria led to 104 phase 2 interviews (Internet (OLC): 21; Internet (FTF): 20); Gyms (FTF): 23; HIV testing (FTF): 20; HIV treatment (FTF): 20.) (SHI23). Of the fifty interviews conducted, thirty were translated from Spanish into English. These thirty, from which we draw our findings, were chosen for translation based on heterogeneity in depressive symptomology and educational attainment. (SHI127).

Finally, the pre-determination of sample size on the basis of sampling requirements was stated by one article though this was not used to justify the number of interviews (SHI10).

Sample size guidelines

Five BJHP articles (BJHP28; BJHP38 – see extract in section Qualities of the analysis ; BJHP46; BJHP47; BJHP50 – see extract in section Saturation ) and one SHI paper (SHI73) relied on citing existing sample size guidelines or norms within research traditions to determine and subsequently defend their sample size (7.2% of all justifications).

Sample size guidelines suggested a range between 20 and 30 interviews to be adequate (Creswell, 1998). Interviewer and note taker agreed that thematic saturation, the point at which no new concepts emerge from subsequent interviews (Patton, 2002), was achieved following completion of 20 interviews. (BJHP28). Interviewing continued until we deemed data saturation to have been reached (the point at which no new themes were emerging). Researchers have proposed 30 as an approximate or working number of interviews at which one could expect to be reaching theoretical saturation when using a semi-structured interview approach (Morse 2000), although this can vary depending on the heterogeneity of respondents interviewed and complexity of the issues explored. (SHI73).

In line with existing research

Sample sizes of published literature in the area of the subject matter under investigation (3.5% of all justifications) were used by 2 BMJ articles as guidance and a precedent for determining and defending their own sample size (BMJ08; BMJ15 – see extract in section Pragmatic considerations ).

We drew participants from a list of prisoners who were scheduled for release each week, sampling them until we reached the target of 35 cases, with a view to achieving data saturation within the scope of the study and sufficient follow-up interviews and in line with recent studies [8–10]. (BMJ08).

Similarly, BJHP38 (see extract in section Qualities of the analysis ) claimed that its sample size was within the range of sample sizes of published studies that use its analytic approach.

Richness and volume of data

BMJ21 (see extract in section Qualities of the analysis ) and SHI32 referred to the richness, detailed nature, and volume of data collected (2.3% of all justifications) to justify the sufficiency of their sample size.

Although there were more potential interviewees from those contacted by postcode selection, it was decided to stop recruitment after the 10th interview and focus on analysis of this sample. The material collected was considerable and, given the focused nature of the study, extremely detailed. Moreover, a high degree of consensus had begun to emerge among those interviewed, and while it is always difficult to judge at what point ‘theoretical saturation’ has been reached, or how many interviews would be required to uncover exception(s), it was felt the number was sufficient to satisfy the aims of this small in-depth investigation (Strauss and Corbin 1990). (SHI32).

Meet research design requirements

Determination of sample size so that it is in line with, and serves the requirements of, the research design (2.3% of all justifications) that the study adopted was another justification used by 2 BMJ papers (BMJ16; BMJ08 – see extract in section In line with existing research ).

We aimed for diverse, maximum variation samples [20] totalling 80 respondents from different social backgrounds and ethnic groups and those bereaved due to different types of suicide and traumatic death. We could have interviewed a smaller sample at different points in time (a qualitative longitudinal study) but chose instead to seek a broad range of experiences by interviewing those bereaved many years ago and others bereaved more recently; those bereaved in different circumstances and with different relations to the deceased; and people who lived in different parts of the UK; with different support systems and coroners’ procedures (see Tables 1 and 2 for more details). (BMJ16).

Researchers’ previous experience

The researchers’ previous experience (possibly referring to experience with qualitative research) was invoked by BMJ15 (see extract in section Pragmatic considerations ) as a justification for the determination of sample size.

Nature of study

One BJHP paper argued that the sample size was appropriate for the exploratory nature of the study (BJHP38).

A sample of eight participants was deemed appropriate because of the exploratory nature of this research and the focus on identifying underlying ideas about the topic. (BJHP38).

Further sampling to check findings consistency

Finally, SHI112 argued that once it had achieved saturation of discursive patterns, further sampling was decided and conducted to check for consistency of the findings.

Within each of the age-stratified groups, interviews were randomly sampled until saturation of discursive patterns was achieved. This resulted in a sample of 67 interviews. Once this sample had been analysed, one further interview from each age-stratified group was randomly chosen to check for consistency of the findings. Using this approach it was possible to more carefully explore children’s discourse about the ‘I’, agency, relationality and power in the thematic areas, revealing the subtle discursive variations described in this article. (SHI112).

Thematic analysis of passages discussing sample size

This analysis resulted in two overarching thematic areas; the first concerned the variation in the characterisation of sample size sufficiency, and the second related to the perceived threats deriving from sample size insufficiency.

Characterisations of sample size sufficiency

The analysis showed that there were three main characterisations of the sample size in the articles that provided relevant comments and discussion: (a) the vast majority of these qualitative studies ( n  = 42) considered their sample size as ‘small’ and this was seen and discussed as a limitation; only two articles viewed their small sample size as desirable and appropriate (b) a minority of articles ( n  = 4) proclaimed that their achieved sample size was ‘sufficient’; and (c) finally, a small group of studies ( n  = 5) characterised their sample size as ‘large’. Whilst achieving a ‘large’ sample size was sometimes viewed positively because it led to richer results, there were also occasions when a large sample size was problematic rather than desirable.

‘Small’ but why and for whom?

A number of articles which characterised their sample size as ‘small’ did so against an implicit or explicit quantitative framework of reference. Interestingly, three studies that claimed to have achieved data saturation or ‘theoretical sufficiency’ with their sample size, discussed or noted as a limitation in their discussion their ‘small’ sample size, raising the question of why, or for whom, the sample size was considered small given that the qualitative criterion of saturation had been satisfied.

The current study has a number of limitations. The sample size was small (n = 11) and, however, large enough for no new themes to emerge. (BJHP39). The study has two principal limitations. The first of these relates to the small number of respondents who took part in the study. (SHI73).

Other articles appeared to accept and acknowledge that their sample was flawed because of its small size (as well as other compositional ‘deficits’ e.g. non-representativeness, biases, self-selection) or anticipated that they might be criticized for their small sample size. It seemed that the imagined audience – perhaps reviewer or reader – was one inclined to hold the tenets of quantitative research, and certainly one to whom it was important to indicate the recognition that small samples were likely to be problematic. That one’s sample might be thought small was often construed as a limitation couched in a discourse of regret or apology.

Very occasionally, the articulation of the small size as a limitation was explicitly aligned against an espoused positivist framework and quantitative research.

This study has some limitations. Firstly, the 100 incidents sample represents a small number of the total number of serious incidents that occurs every year. 26 We sent out a nationwide invitation and do not know why more people did not volunteer for the study. Our lack of epidemiological knowledge about healthcare incidents, however, means that determining an appropriate sample size continues to be difficult. (BMJ20).

Indicative of an apparent oscillation of qualitative researchers between the different requirements and protocols demarcating the quantitative and qualitative worlds, there were a few instances of articles which briefly recognised their ‘small’ sample size as a limitation, but then defended their study on more qualitative grounds, such as their ability and success at capturing the complexity of experience and delving into the idiographic, and at generating particularly rich data.

This research, while limited in size, has sought to capture some of the complexity attached to men’s attitudes and experiences concerning incomes and material circumstances. (SHI35). Our numbers are small because negotiating access to social networks was slow and labour intensive, but our methods generated exceptionally rich data. (BMJ21). This study could be criticised for using a small and unrepresentative sample. Given that older adults have been ignored in the research concerning suntanning, fair-skinned older adults are the most likely to experience skin cancer, and women privilege appearance over health when it comes to sunbathing practices, our study offers depth and richness of data in a demographic group much in need of research attention. (SHI57).

‘Good enough’ sample sizes

Only four articles expressed some degree of confidence that their achieved sample size was sufficient. For example, SHI139, in line with the justification of thematic saturation that it offered, expressed trust in its sample size sufficiency despite the poor response rate. Similarly, BJHP04, which did not provide a sample size justification, argued that it targeted a larger sample size in order to eventually recruit a sufficient number of interviewees, due to anticipated low response rate.

Twenty-three people with type I diabetes from the target population of 133 ( i.e. 17.3%) consented to participate but four did not then respond to further contacts (total N = 19). The relatively low response rate was anticipated, due to the busy life-styles of young people in the age range, the geographical constraints, and the time required to participate in a semi-structured interview, so a larger target sample allowed a sufficient number of participants to be recruited. (BJHP04).

Two other articles (BJHP35; SHI32) linked the claimed sufficiency to the scope (i.e. ‘small, in-depth investigation’), aims and nature (i.e. ‘exploratory’) of their studies, thus anchoring their numbers to the particular context of their research. Nevertheless, claims of sample size sufficiency were sometimes undermined when they were juxtaposed with an acknowledgement that a larger sample size would be more scientifically productive.

Although our sample size was sufficient for this exploratory study, a more diverse sample including participants with lower socioeconomic status and more ethnic variation would be informative. A larger sample could also ensure inclusion of a more representative range of apps operating on a wider range of platforms. (BJHP35).

‘Large’ sample sizes - Promise or peril?

Three articles (BMJ13; BJHP05; BJHP48) which all provided the justification of saturation, characterised their sample size as ‘large’ and narrated this oversufficiency in positive terms as it allowed richer data and findings and enhanced the potential for generalisation. The type of generalisation aspired to (BJHP48) was not further specified however.

This study used rich data provided by a relatively large sample of expert informants on an important but under-researched topic. (BMJ13). Qualitative research provides a unique opportunity to understand a clinical problem from the patient’s perspective. This study had a large diverse sample, recruited through a range of locations and used in-depth interviews which enhance the richness and generalizability of the results. (BJHP48).

And whilst a ‘large’ sample size was endorsed and valued by some qualitative researchers, within the psychological tradition of IPA, a ‘large’ sample size was counter-normative and therefore needed to be justified. Four BJHP studies, all adopting IPA, expressed the appropriateness or desirability of ‘small’ sample sizes (BJHP41; BJHP45) or hastened to explain why they included a larger than typical sample size (BJHP32; BJHP47). For example, BJHP32 below provides a rationale for how an IPA study can accommodate a large sample size and how this was indeed suitable for the purposes of the particular research. To strengthen the explanation for choosing a non-normative sample size, previous IPA research citing a similar sample size approach is used as a precedent.

Small scale IPA studies allow in-depth analysis which would not be possible with larger samples (Smith et al. , 2009). (BJHP41). Although IPA generally involves intense scrutiny of a small number of transcripts, it was decided to recruit a larger diverse sample as this is the first qualitative study of this population in the United Kingdom (as far as we know) and we wanted to gain an overview. Indeed, Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) agree that IPA is suitable for larger groups. However, the emphasis changes from an in-depth individualistic analysis to one in which common themes from shared experiences of a group of people can be elicited and used to understand the network of relationships between themes that emerge from the interviews. This large-scale format of IPA has been used by other researchers in the field of false-positive research. Baillie, Smith, Hewison, and Mason (2000) conducted an IPA study, with 24 participants, of ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality; they found that this larger number of participants enabled them to produce a more refined and cohesive account. (BJHP32).

The IPA articles found in the BJHP were the only instances where a ‘small’ sample size was advocated and a ‘large’ sample size problematized and defended. These IPA studies illustrate that the characterisation of sample size sufficiency can be a function of researchers’ theoretical and epistemological commitments rather than the result of an ‘objective’ sample size assessment.

Threats from sample size insufficiency

As shown above, the majority of articles that commented on their sample size, simultaneously characterized it as small and problematic. On those occasions that authors did not simply cite their ‘small’ sample size as a study limitation but rather continued and provided an account of how and why a small sample size was problematic, two important scientific qualities of the research seemed to be threatened: the generalizability and validity of results.

Generalizability

Those who characterised their sample as ‘small’ connected this to the limited potential for generalization of the results. Other features related to the sample – often some kind of compositional particularity – were also linked to limited potential for generalisation. Though not always explicitly articulated to what form of generalisation the articles referred to (see BJHP09), generalisation was mostly conceived in nomothetic terms, that is, it concerned the potential to draw inferences from the sample to the broader study population (‘representational generalisation’ – see BJHP31) and less often to other populations or cultures.

It must be noted that samples are small and whilst in both groups the majority of those women eligible participated, generalizability cannot be assumed. (BJHP09). The study’s limitations should be acknowledged: Data are presented from interviews with a relatively small group of participants, and thus, the views are not necessarily generalizable to all patients and clinicians. In particular, patients were only recruited from secondary care services where COFP diagnoses are typically confirmed. The sample therefore is unlikely to represent the full spectrum of patients, particularly those who are not referred to, or who have been discharged from dental services. (BJHP31).

Without explicitly using the term generalisation, two SHI articles noted how their ‘small’ sample size imposed limits on ‘the extent that we can extrapolate from these participants’ accounts’ (SHI114) or to the possibility ‘to draw far-reaching conclusions from the results’ (SHI124).

Interestingly, only a minority of articles alluded to, or invoked, a type of generalisation that is aligned with qualitative research, that is, idiographic generalisation (i.e. generalisation that can be made from and about cases [ 5 ]). These articles, all published in the discipline of sociology, defended their findings in terms of the possibility of drawing logical and conceptual inferences to other contexts and of generating understanding that has the potential to advance knowledge, despite their ‘small’ size. One article (SHI139) clearly contrasted nomothetic (statistical) generalisation to idiographic generalisation, arguing that the lack of statistical generalizability does not nullify the ability of qualitative research to still be relevant beyond the sample studied.

Further, these data do not need to be statistically generalisable for us to draw inferences that may advance medicalisation analyses (Charmaz 2014). These data may be seen as an opportunity to generate further hypotheses and are a unique application of the medicalisation framework. (SHI139). Although a small-scale qualitative study related to school counselling, this analysis can be usefully regarded as a case study of the successful utilisation of mental health-related resources by adolescents. As many of the issues explored are of relevance to mental health stigma more generally, it may also provide insights into adult engagement in services. It shows how a sociological analysis, which uses positioning theory to examine how people negotiate, partially accept and simultaneously resist stigmatisation in relation to mental health concerns, can contribute to an elucidation of the social processes and narrative constructions which may maintain as well as bridge the mental health service gap. (SHI103).

Only one article (SHI30) used the term transferability to argue for the potential of wider relevance of the results which was thought to be more the product of the composition of the sample (i.e. diverse sample), rather than the sample size.

The second major concern that arose from a ‘small’ sample size pertained to the internal validity of findings (i.e. here the term is used to denote the ‘truth’ or credibility of research findings). Authors expressed uncertainty about the degree of confidence in particular aspects or patterns of their results, primarily those that concerned some form of differentiation on the basis of relevant participant characteristics.

The information source preferred seemed to vary according to parents’ education; however, the sample size is too small to draw conclusions about such patterns. (SHI80). Although our numbers were too small to demonstrate gender differences with any certainty, it does seem that the biomedical and erotic scripts may be more common in the accounts of men and the relational script more common in the accounts of women. (SHI81).

In other instances, articles expressed uncertainty about whether their results accounted for the full spectrum and variation of the phenomenon under investigation. In other words, a ‘small’ sample size (alongside compositional ‘deficits’ such as a not statistically representative sample) was seen to threaten the ‘content validity’ of the results which in turn led to constructions of the study conclusions as tentative.

Data collection ceased on pragmatic grounds rather than when no new information appeared to be obtained ( i.e. , saturation point). As such, care should be taken not to overstate the findings. Whilst the themes from the initial interviews seemed to be replicated in the later interviews, further interviews may have identified additional themes or provided more nuanced explanations. (BJHP53). …it should be acknowledged that this study was based on a small sample of self-selected couples in enduring marriages who were not broadly representative of the population. Thus, participants may not be representative of couples that experience postnatal PTSD. It is therefore unlikely that all the key themes have been identified and explored. For example, couples who were excluded from the study because the male partner declined to participate may have been experiencing greater interpersonal difficulties. (BJHP03).

In other instances, articles attempted to preserve a degree of credibility of their results, despite the recognition that the sample size was ‘small’. Clarity and sharpness of emerging themes and alignment with previous relevant work were the arguments employed to warrant the validity of the results.

This study focused on British Chinese carers of patients with affective disorders, using a qualitative methodology to synthesise the sociocultural representations of illness within this community. Despite the small sample size, clear themes emerged from the narratives that were sufficient for this exploratory investigation. (SHI98).

The present study sought to examine how qualitative sample sizes in health-related research are characterised and justified. In line with previous studies [ 22 , 30 , 33 , 34 ] the findings demonstrate that reporting of sample size sufficiency is limited; just over 50% of articles in the BMJ and BJHP and 82% in the SHI did not provide any sample size justification. Providing a sample size justification was not related to the number of interviews conducted, but it was associated with the journal that the article was published in, indicating the influence of disciplinary or publishing norms, also reported in prior research [ 30 ]. This lack of transparency about sample size sufficiency is problematic given that most qualitative researchers would agree that it is an important marker of quality [ 56 , 57 ]. Moreover, and with the rise of qualitative research in social sciences, efforts to synthesise existing evidence and assess its quality are obstructed by poor reporting [ 58 , 59 ].

When authors justified their sample size, our findings indicate that sufficiency was mostly appraised with reference to features that were intrinsic to the study, in agreement with general advice on sample size determination [ 4 , 11 , 36 ]. The principle of saturation was the most commonly invoked argument [ 22 ] accounting for 55% of all justifications. A wide range of variants of saturation was evident corroborating the proliferation of the meaning of the term [ 49 ] and reflecting different underlying conceptualisations or models of saturation [ 20 ]. Nevertheless, claims of saturation were never substantiated in relation to procedures conducted in the study itself, endorsing similar observations in the literature [ 25 , 30 , 47 ]. Claims of saturation were sometimes supported with citations of other literature, suggesting a removal of the concept away from the characteristics of the study at hand. Pragmatic considerations, such as resource constraints or participant response rate and availability, was the second most frequently used argument accounting for approximately 10% of justifications and another 23% of justifications also represented intrinsic-to-the-study characteristics (i.e. qualities of the analysis, meeting sampling or research design requirements, richness and volume of the data obtained, nature of study, further sampling to check findings consistency).

Only, 12% of mentions of sample size justification pertained to arguments that were external to the study at hand, in the form of existing sample size guidelines and prior research that sets precedents. Whilst community norms and prior research can establish useful rules of thumb for estimating sample sizes [ 60 ] – and reveal what sizes are more likely to be acceptable within research communities – researchers should avoid adopting these norms uncritically, especially when such guidelines [e.g. 30 , 35 ], might be based on research that does not provide adequate evidence of sample size sufficiency. Similarly, whilst methodological research that seeks to demonstrate the achievement of saturation is invaluable since it explicates the parameters upon which saturation is contingent and indicates when a research project is likely to require a smaller or a larger sample [e.g. 29 ], specific numbers at which saturation was achieved within these projects cannot be routinely extrapolated for other projects. We concur with existing views [ 11 , 36 ] that the consideration of the characteristics of the study at hand, such as the epistemological and theoretical approach, the nature of the phenomenon under investigation, the aims and scope of the study, the quality and richness of data, or the researcher’s experience and skills of conducting qualitative research, should be the primary guide in determining sample size and assessing its sufficiency.

Moreover, although numbers in qualitative research are not unimportant [ 61 ], sample size should not be considered alone but be embedded in the more encompassing examination of data adequacy [ 56 , 57 ]. Erickson’s [ 62 ] dimensions of ‘evidentiary adequacy’ are useful here. He explains the concept in terms of adequate amounts of evidence, adequate variety in kinds of evidence, adequate interpretive status of evidence, adequate disconfirming evidence, and adequate discrepant case analysis. All dimensions might not be relevant across all qualitative research designs, but this illustrates the thickness of the concept of data adequacy, taking it beyond sample size.

The present research also demonstrated that sample sizes were commonly seen as ‘small’ and insufficient and discussed as limitation. Often unjustified (and in two cases incongruent with their own claims of saturation) these findings imply that sample size in qualitative health research is often adversely judged (or expected to be judged) against an implicit, yet omnipresent, quasi-quantitative standpoint. Indeed there were a few instances in our data where authors appeared, possibly in response to reviewers, to resist to some sort of quantification of their results. This implicit reference point became more apparent when authors discussed the threats deriving from an insufficient sample size. Whilst the concerns about internal validity might be legitimate to the extent that qualitative research projects, which are broadly related to realism, are set to examine phenomena in sufficient breadth and depth, the concerns around generalizability revealed a conceptualisation that is not compatible with purposive sampling. The limited potential for generalisation, as a result of a small sample size, was often discussed in nomothetic, statistical terms. Only occasionally was analytic or idiographic generalisation invoked to warrant the value of the study’s findings [ 5 , 17 ].

Strengths and limitations of the present study

We note, first, the limited number of health-related journals reviewed, so that only a ‘snapshot’ of qualitative health research has been captured. Examining additional disciplines (e.g. nursing sciences) as well as inter-disciplinary journals would add to the findings of this analysis. Nevertheless, our study is the first to provide some comparative insights on the basis of disciplines that are differently attached to the legacy of positivism and analysed literature published over a lengthy period of time (15 years). Guetterman [ 27 ] also examined health-related literature but this analysis was restricted to 26 most highly cited articles published over a period of five years whilst Carlsen and Glenton’s [ 22 ] study concentrated on focus groups health research. Moreover, although it was our intention to examine sample size justification in relation to the epistemological and theoretical positions of articles, this proved to be challenging largely due to absence of relevant information, or the difficulty into discerning clearly articles’ positions [ 63 ] and classifying them under specific approaches (e.g. studies often combined elements from different theoretical and epistemological traditions). We believe that such an analysis would yield useful insights as it links the methodological issue of sample size to the broader philosophical stance of the research. Despite these limitations, the analysis of the characterisation of sample size and of the threats seen to accrue from insufficient sample size, enriches our understanding of sample size (in)sufficiency argumentation by linking it to other features of the research. As the peer-review process becomes increasingly public, future research could usefully examine how reporting around sample size sufficiency and data adequacy might be influenced by the interactions between authors and reviewers.

The past decade has seen a growing appetite in qualitative research for an evidence-based approach to sample size determination and to evaluations of the sufficiency of sample size. Despite the conceptual and methodological developments in the area, the findings of the present study confirm previous studies in concluding that appraisals of sample size sufficiency are either absent or poorly substantiated. To ensure and maintain high quality research that will encourage greater appreciation of qualitative work in health-related sciences [ 64 ], we argue that qualitative researchers should be more transparent and thorough in their evaluation of sample size as part of their appraisal of data adequacy. We would encourage the practice of appraising sample size sufficiency with close reference to the study at hand and would thus caution against responding to the growing methodological research in this area with a decontextualised application of sample size numerical guidelines, norms and principles. Although researchers might find sample size community norms serve as useful rules of thumb, we recommend methodological knowledge is used to critically consider how saturation and other parameters that affect sample size sufficiency pertain to the specifics of the particular project. Those reviewing papers have a vital role in encouraging transparent study-specific reporting. The review process should support authors to exercise nuanced judgments in decisions about sample size determination in the context of the range of factors that influence sample size sufficiency and the specifics of a particular study. In light of the growing methodological evidence in the area, transparent presentation of such evidence-based judgement is crucial and in time should surely obviate the seemingly routine practice of citing the ‘small’ size of qualitative samples among the study limitations.

A non-parametric test of difference for independent samples was performed since the variable number of interviews violated assumptions of normality according to the standardized scores of skewness and kurtosis (BMJ: z skewness = 3.23, z kurtosis = 1.52; BJHP: z skewness = 4.73, z kurtosis = 4.85; SHI: z skewness = 12.04, z kurtosis = 21.72) and the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality ( p  < .001).

Abbreviations

British Journal of Health Psychology

British Medical Journal

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Sociology of Health & Illness

Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. National Centre for Social Research 2003 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/166_policy_hub_a_quality_framework.pdf Accessed 11 May 2018.

Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research Qual Rep. 2015;20(9):1408–16.

Google Scholar  

Robinson OC. Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical guide. Qual Res Psychol. 2014;11(1):25–41.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(2):179–83.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M. One is the liveliest number: the case orientation of qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1996;19(6):525–9.

Luborsky MR, Rubinstein RL. Sampling in qualitative research: rationale, issues. and methods Res Aging. 1995;17(1):89–113.

Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13(6):522–6.

Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.

van Rijnsoever FJ. (I Can’t get no) saturation: a simulation and guidelines for sample sizes in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181689.

Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(2):147–9.

Morse JM. Determining sample size. Qual Health Res. 2000;10(1):3–5.

Gergen KJ, Josselson R, Freeman M. The promises of qualitative inquiry. Am Psychol. 2015;70(1):1–9.

Borsci S, Macredie RD, Barnett J, Martin J, Kuljis J, Young T. Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: a grounded procedure for interaction evaluation. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2013;20(5):29.

Borsci S, Macredie RD, Martin JL, Young T. How many testers are needed to assure the usability of medical devices? Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11(5):513–25.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1967.

Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):269–81.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage; 1985.

Book   Google Scholar  

Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2015;26:1753–60.

Nelson J. Using conceptual depth criteria: addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2017;17(5):554–70.

Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 .

Caine K. Local standards for sample size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2016;981–992. ACM.

Carlsen B, Glenton C. What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):26.

Constantinou CS, Georgiou M, Perdikogianni M. A comparative method for themes saturation (CoMeTS) in qualitative interviews. Qual Res. 2017;17(5):571–88.

Dai NT, Free C, Gendron Y. Interview-based research in accounting 2000–2014: a review. November 2016. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2711022 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2711022 . Accessed 17 May 2018.

Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–45.

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

Guetterman TC. Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2015;16(2):25. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502256 . Accessed 17 May 2018.

Hagaman AK, Wutich A. How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on guest, bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field Methods. 2017;29(1):23–41.

Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(4):591–608.

Marshall B, Cardon P, Poddar A, Fontenot R. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: a review of qualitative interviews in IS research. J Comput Inform Syst. 2013;54(1):11–22.

Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual Soc Res 2010;11(3):8. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387 . Accessed 17 May 2018.

Safman RM, Sobal J. Qualitative sample extensiveness in health education research. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(1):9–21.

Saunders MN, Townsend K. Reporting and justifying the number of interview participants in organization and workplace research. Br J Manag. 2016;27(4):836–52.

Sobal J. 2001. Sample extensiveness in qualitative nutrition education research. J Nutr Educ. 2001;33(4):184–92.

Thomson SB. 2010. Sample size and grounded theory. JOAAG. 2010;5(1). http://www.joaag.com/uploads/5_1__Research_Note_1_Thomson.pdf . Accessed 17 May 2018.

Baker SE, Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough?: expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. 2012; http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf . Accessed 17 May 2018.

Ogden J, Cornwell D. The role of topic, interviewee, and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(7):1059–71.

Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage; 2004.

Ritchie J, Lewis J, Elam G. Designing and selecting samples. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage; 2003. p. 77–108.

Britten N. Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311(6999):251–3.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2007.

Fugard AJ, Potts HW. Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(6):669–84.

Emmel N. Themes, variables, and the limits to calculating sample size in qualitative research: a response to Fugard and Potts. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(6):685–6.

Braun V, Clarke V. (Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2016;19(6):739–43.

Hammersley M. Sampling and thematic analysis: a response to Fugard and Potts. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(6):687–8.

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.

Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res. 2008;8(1):137–52.

Morse JM. Data were saturated. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(5):587–8.

O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–7.

Manen M, Higgins I, Riet P. A conversation with max van Manen on phenomenology in its original sense. Nurs Health Sci. 2016;18(1):4–7.

Dey I. Grounding grounded theory. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press; 1999.

Hays DG, Wood C, Dahl H, Kirk-Jenkins A. Methodological rigor in journal of counseling & development qualitative research articles: a 15-year review. J Couns Dev. 2016;94(2):172–83.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.

Levitt HM, Motulsky SL, Wertz FJ, Morrow SL, Ponterotto JG. Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: promoting methodological integrity. Qual Psychol. 2017;4(1):2–22.

Morrow SL. Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):250–60.

Barroso J, Sandelowski M. Sample reporting in qualitative studies of women with HIV infection. Field Methods. 2003;15(4):386–404.

Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, Munthe-Kaas H, Colvin CJ, Tunçalp Ö, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):14.

Onwuegbuzie AJ. Leech NL. A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual Quant. 2007;41(1):105–21.

Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):230–40.

Erickson F. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: Wittrock M, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan; 1986. p. 119–61.

Bradbury-Jones C, Taylor J, Herber O. How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: development of a new typology. Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:135–41.

Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ. 2016;i563:352.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Paula Smith and Katharine Lee for their comments on a previous draft of this paper as well as Natalie Ann Mitchell and Meron Teferra for assisting us with data extraction.

This research was initially conceived of and partly conducted with financial support from the Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) programme (EP/F063822/1 and EP/G012393/1). The research continued and was completed independent of any support. The funding body did not have any role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, in the writing of the paper, and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors alone.

Availability of data and materials

Supporting data can be accessed in the original publications. Additional File 2 lists all eligible studies that were included in the present analysis.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Building 10 West, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

Konstantina Vasileiou & Julie Barnett

School of Psychology, Newcastle University, Ridley Building 1, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

Susan Thorpe

Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Wilfred Brown Building 108, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK

Terry Young

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JB and TY conceived the study; KV, JB, and TY designed the study; KV identified the articles and extracted the data; KV and JB assessed eligibility of articles; KV, JB, ST, and TY contributed to the analysis of the data, discussed the findings and early drafts of the paper; KV developed the final manuscript; KV, JB, ST, and TY read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantina Vasileiou .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

Terry Young is an academic who undertakes research and occasional consultancy in the areas of health technology assessment, information systems, and service design. He is unaware of any direct conflict of interest with respect to this paper. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional Files

Additional file 1:.

Editorial positions on qualitative research and sample considerations (where available). (DOCX 12 kb)

Additional File 2:

List of eligible articles included in the review ( N  = 214). (DOCX 38 kb)

Additional File 3:

Data Extraction Form. (DOCX 15 kb)

Additional File 4:

Citations used by articles to support their position on saturation. (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S. et al. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol 18 , 148 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7

Download citation

Received : 22 May 2018

Accepted : 29 October 2018

Published : 21 November 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sample size
• Sample size justification
• Sample size characterisation
• Data adequacy
• Qualitative health research
• Qualitative interviews
• Systematic analysis

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

2024 Theses Doctoral

Statistically Efficient Methods for Computation-Aware Uncertainty Quantification and Rare-Event Optimization

He, Shengyi

The thesis covers two fundamental topics that are important across the disciplines of operations research, statistics and even more broadly, namely stochastic optimization and uncertainty quantification, with the common theme to address both statistical accuracy and computational constraints. Here, statistical accuracy encompasses the precision of estimated solutions in stochastic optimization, as well as the tightness or reliability of confidence intervals. Computational concerns arise from rare events or expensive models, necessitating efficient sampling methods or computation procedures. In the first half of this thesis, we study stochastic optimization that involves rare events, which arises in various contexts including risk-averse decision-making and training of machine learning models. Because of the presence of rare events, crude Monte Carlo methods can be prohibitively inefficient, as it takes a sample size reciprocal to the rare-event probability to obtain valid statistical information about the rare-event. To address this issue, we investigate the use of importance sampling (IS) to reduce the required sample size. IS is commonly used to handle rare events, and the idea is to sample from an alternative distribution that hits the rare event more frequently and adjusts the estimator with a likelihood ratio to retain unbiasedness. While IS has been long studied, most of its literature focuses on estimation problems and methodologies to obtain good IS in these contexts. Contrary to these studies, the first half of this thesis provides a systematic study on the efficient use of IS in stochastic optimization. In Chapter 2, we propose an adaptive procedure that converts an efficient IS for gradient estimation to an efficient IS procedure for stochastic optimization. Then, in Chapter 3, we provide an efficient IS for gradient estimation, which serves as the input for the procedure in Chapter 2. In the second half of this thesis, we study uncertainty quantification in the sense of constructing a confidence interval (CI) for target model quantities or prediction. We are interested in the setting of expensive black-box models, which means that we are confined to using a low number of model runs, and we also lack the ability to obtain auxiliary model information such as gradients. In this case, a classical method is batching, which divides data into a few batches and then constructs a CI based on the batched estimates. Another method is the recently proposed cheap bootstrap that is constructed on a few resamples in a similar manner as batching. These methods could save computation since they do not need an accurate variability estimator which requires sufficient model evaluations to obtain. Instead, they cancel out the variability when constructing pivotal statistics, and thus obtain asymptotically valid t-distribution-based CIs with only few batches or resamples. The second half of this thesis studies several theoretical aspects of these computation-aware CI construction methods. In Chapter 4, we study the statistical optimality on CI tightness among various computation-aware CIs. Then, in Chapter 5, we study the higher-order coverage errors of batching methods. Finally, Chapter 6 is a related investigation on the higher-order coverage and correction of distributionally robust optimization (DRO) as another CI construction tool, which assumes an amount of analytical information on the model but bears similarity to Chapter 5 in terms of analysis techniques.

• Operations research
• Stochastic processes--Mathematical models
• Mathematical optimization
• Bootstrap (Statistics)
• Sampling (Statistics)

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

US Jobs Household Survey Size to Be Cut Amid Budget Constraints

By Alex Tanzi

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is reducing the sample size of the household survey in the monthly jobs report due to budget constraints, the head of the agency said at a conference Friday.

BLS will cut the size by 5,000 households to a total of 55,000 a month starting in 2025, Commissioner Erika McEntarfer said at the quarterly meeting of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics. She noted there’s a “real risk” of a decline in quality, especially as response rates have declined substantially in recent years.

“Survey costs are increasing faster than the budget. In the past ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.