We selected three existing qualitative datasets to which we applied the bootstrapping method. Although the datasets were all generated from individual interviews analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach, the studies from which they were drawn differed with respect to study population, topics of inquiry, sample heterogeneity, interviewer, and structure of data collection instrument, as described below.
Dataset 1. This study included 40 individual interviews with African American men in the Southeast US about their health seeking behaviors [29 (link)]. The interview guide contained 13 main questions, each with scripted sub-questions. Inductive probing was employed throughout all interviews. The inductive thematic analysis included 11 of the 13 questions and generated 93 unique codes. The study sample was highly homogenous.
Dataset 2. The second dataset consists of 48 individual interviews conducted with (mostly white) mothers in the Southeast US about medical risk and research during pregnancy [30 (link)]. The interview guide contained 13 main questions, each with scripted sub-questions. Inductive probing was employed throughout all interviews. Of note, the 48 interviews were conducted, 12 each, using different modes of data collection: in-person, by video (Skype-like platform), email (asynchronous), or text chat (synchronous). The qualitative thematic analysis included 10 of these questions and generated 85 unique codes.
Dataset 3. This study included 60 interviews with women at higher risk of HIV acquisition—30 participants in Kenya and 30 in South Africa [31 (link)]. The interview was a follow-up qualitative inquiry into women’s responses on a quantitative survey. Though there were 14 questions on the guide, only data from three questions were included in the thematic analysis referenced here. Those three questions generated 55 codes. Participants from the two sites were similar demographically with the exceptions of education and marital status. Substantially more women from the Kenya sample were married and living with their partners (63% versus 3%) and were less likely to have completed at least some secondary education. All interviews were conducted in a local language.
Data from all three studies were digitally recorded and transcribed using a transcription protocol [32 ]; transcripts were translated to English for Dataset 3. Transcripts were imported into NVivo [33 ] to facilitate coding and analysis. All three datasets were analyzed using a systematic inductive thematic approach [2 ], and all codes were explicitly defined in a codebook following a standard template [34 ]. For Datasets 1 & 2, two analysts coded each transcript independently and compared code application after each transcript. Discrepancies in code application were resolved through discussion, resulting in consensus-coded documents. For Dataset 3, two coders conducted this type of inter-coder reliability assessment on 20% of the interviews (a standard, more efficient approach than double-coding all interviews [2 ]). All three studies were reviewed and approved by the FHI 360 Protection of Human Subjects Committee; the study which produced Dataset 3 was also reviewed and approved by local IRBs in Kenya and South Africa.
Dataset 1. This study included 40 individual interviews with African American men in the Southeast US about their health seeking behaviors [29 (link)]. The interview guide contained 13 main questions, each with scripted sub-questions. Inductive probing was employed throughout all interviews. The inductive thematic analysis included 11 of the 13 questions and generated 93 unique codes. The study sample was highly homogenous.
Dataset 2. The second dataset consists of 48 individual interviews conducted with (mostly white) mothers in the Southeast US about medical risk and research during pregnancy [30 (link)]. The interview guide contained 13 main questions, each with scripted sub-questions. Inductive probing was employed throughout all interviews. Of note, the 48 interviews were conducted, 12 each, using different modes of data collection: in-person, by video (Skype-like platform), email (asynchronous), or text chat (synchronous). The qualitative thematic analysis included 10 of these questions and generated 85 unique codes.
Dataset 3. This study included 60 interviews with women at higher risk of HIV acquisition—30 participants in Kenya and 30 in South Africa [31 (link)]. The interview was a follow-up qualitative inquiry into women’s responses on a quantitative survey. Though there were 14 questions on the guide, only data from three questions were included in the thematic analysis referenced here. Those three questions generated 55 codes. Participants from the two sites were similar demographically with the exceptions of education and marital status. Substantially more women from the Kenya sample were married and living with their partners (63% versus 3%) and were less likely to have completed at least some secondary education. All interviews were conducted in a local language.
Data from all three studies were digitally recorded and transcribed using a transcription protocol [32 ]; transcripts were translated to English for Dataset 3. Transcripts were imported into NVivo [33 ] to facilitate coding and analysis. All three datasets were analyzed using a systematic inductive thematic approach [2 ], and all codes were explicitly defined in a codebook following a standard template [34 ]. For Datasets 1 & 2, two analysts coded each transcript independently and compared code application after each transcript. Discrepancies in code application were resolved through discussion, resulting in consensus-coded documents. For Dataset 3, two coders conducted this type of inter-coder reliability assessment on 20% of the interviews (a standard, more efficient approach than double-coding all interviews [2 ]). All three studies were reviewed and approved by the FHI 360 Protection of Human Subjects Committee; the study which produced Dataset 3 was also reviewed and approved by local IRBs in Kenya and South Africa.
Free full text: Click here
