 Can raters consistently evaluate the content of focus groups?Morris Weinberger, Jeffrey A. Ferguson, Glenda Westmoreland, Lorrie A. Mamlin, Douglas S. Segar, George J. Eckert, James Y. Greene, Douglas K. Martin and William M. Tierney Social Science & Medicine, 1998, vol. 46, issue 7, 929-933 Abstract: Focus groups are increasingly being used to provide insights to researchers and policy makers. These data complement quantitative approaches to understanding the world. Unfortunately, quantitative and qualitative methodologies have often been viewed as antithetical, rather than complementary, strategies. While focus groups can clearly generate rich information that is unobtainable through other quantitative methods, it is important to determine the degree to which different raters can consistently extract information from transcripts. Thus, our goal was to quantify agreement in the interpretation of transcripts from patient and physician focus groups, using decision-making in ischemic heart disease as a model. We used data from focus groups with both patients and physicians that sought to identify factors affecting diagnostic and treatment decisions in ischemic heart disease. Three raters independently reviewed transcribed audiotapes from focus groups of patients with ischemic heart disease, as well as focus groups of physicians who care for these patients. We found that raters could not distinguish between major and minor factors reliably. More troubling, however, is that consistency regarding the apparently straightforward judgment as to the mere presence or absence of a factor was difficult to achieve. In particular, the three raters of each transcript failed to agree on between one third and one half of the factors. This reasonably high level of disagreement occurred despite the raters: (1) having generated the individual factors themselves based upon their reading a random sample of actual transcripts and (2) being trained in the use of rating forms (including standard definitions of themes). These data suggest that if a single rater evaluates focus group transcripts, as is commonly done, judgments may not be reproducible by other raters. Moreover, a single rater may not extract all important information contained in the transcripts. Keywords: focus; groups; consistency; of; rating; qualitative; methods; racial; variation (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:46:y:1998:i:7:p:929-933 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.