Evaluating Bang for the Buck
Evaluating Bang for the Buck
复制标题
评估性价比
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Mario Chen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Namey;G. Guest;Kevin McKenna;Mario Chen
评价者经常使用质性研究方法，但很少有证据表明两种最常用的质性方法--深入访谈（IDIs）和焦点小组（FG）的成本效益比较。我们对来自北卡罗来纳州达勒姆的40名IDIs和40名FG的非裔美国男性（N = 350）的健康寻求行为数据进行了归纳主题分析。我们使用自举模拟从每个数据集中生成10，000个随机样本，并计算达到不同主题饱和度所需的数据收集事件数量。对于IDI，达到80%和90%饱和度所需的数据收集事件的中位数分别为8和16，对于FG，分别为3和5。面谈时间较长，但在两个级别上都更具成本效益。按中位数计算，IDIs达到主题饱和的成本要低20-36%。评价人员在选择定性数据收集方法时可以考虑这些基于经验的成本效益数据。
Evaluators often use qualitative research methods, yet there is little evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two most commonly employed qualitative methods—in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus groups (FGs). We performed an inductive thematic analysis of data from 40 IDIs and 40 FGs on the health-seeking behaviors of African American men (N = 350) in Durham, North Carolina. We used a bootstrap simulation to generate 10,000 random samples from each data set and calculated the number of data collection events necessary to reach different levels of thematic saturation. The median number of data collection events required to reach 80% and 90% saturation was 8 and 16, respectively, for IDIs and 3 and 5 for FGs. Interviews took longer but were more cost-effective at both levels. At the median, IDIs cost 20–36% less to reach thematic saturation. Evaluators can consider these empirically based cost-effectiveness data when selecting a qualitative data collection method.