| Title |
Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453 |
| Authors |
Andrew J.B. Fugard, Henry W.W. Potts |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 42 | 50% |
| United States | 6 | 7% |
| Australia | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 43 | 51% |
| Scientists | 31 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 2138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 631 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 286 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 229 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 118 | 5% |
| Researcher | 100 | 5% |
| Other | 333 | 16% |
| Unknown | 449 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 630 | 29% |
| Psychology | 268 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 176 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 111 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 104 | 5% |
| Other | 374 | 17% |
| Unknown | 483 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2023.
All research outputs
#584,947
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Social Research Methodology
#10
of 883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,579
of 368,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Social Research Methodology
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.