1
Running Head: FOCUS GROUPS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS
Title: Focus groups versus individual interviews with children: A comparison of data
Caroline Heary1, Eilis Hennessy2
1
National University of Ireland Galway; 2University College Dublin
Address correspondence to:
Dr Caroline Heary,
Department of Psychology,
National University of Ireland, Galway.
Email: caroline.heary@nuigalway.ie;
Tel: + 353 91 495059;
Fax: + 353 91 521355
2
Abstract
In recent years there has been an increase in the use of qualitative data collection techniques
in research with children. Among the most common of these methods are focus groups and
individual interviews. While many authors claim that focus groups have advantages over
individual interviews, these claims have not been tested empirically with children. The
present study reports on the use of focus groups and interviews to collect qualitative data
from 116 children in three age groups, with mean ages of 8.4, 11.5 and 14.3 years. The
children were randomly allocated to participate in either focus groups or individual
interviews where they were presented with identical material and questions relating to their
beliefs about peers with psychological disorders. In line with previous research, the
interviews produced significantly more relevant and unique ideas about the causes of these
disorders than the focus groups, but the latter gave rise to greater elaboration of ideas. The
participating children showed no significant difference in their preference for one method
over the other. Thus, whether to choose individual interviews or focus groups is likely to
depend on the nature of the research question in any given study.
3
Introduction
It could be argued that quantitative research methods have been the ‘bread and butter’ of
psychological enquiry. However, researchers interested in exploring how children construe
themselves and the world they live in are increasingly turning to qualitative methods due to
their open-ended, narrative and holistic nature (Greene & Hill, 2005). The search for
alternative research methods that are more child-focused, or indeed child-led, has resulted in
the increasing use of individual and group interviews in research.
A focus group is a discussion involving a small group of participants led by a
moderator which seeks to gain an insight into the participants’ experiences, attitudes and/or
perceptions (Hennessy & Heary, 2005). With children, these groups typically consist of
between four and six children, with participants generally being the same sex and of a similar
age. Discussions tend to last somewhere between 30 and 90 minutes and are facilitated by a
moderator whose goal is to maximise the interaction of group participants in a nonthreatening environment (Heary & Hennessy, 2002). In contrast, individual interviews
typically consist of a question-and-answer approach between an adult and a child. Like focus
groups, interviews are regarded as being useful for gathering information on emotions,
experiences and feelings (Denscombe, 2003). In addition they are regarded as valuable in
gathering data on sensitive issues (Denscombe, 2003) and on children’s thinking about
complex issues (Ginsburg, 1997).
Individual interviews and focus groups each have their own merits and drawbacks,
but it has frequently been proposed that focus groups can reach areas that other research
methods cannot (Kitzinger, 1995; Krueger, 1996). While some claim a wider bank of data
emerges through the group interaction process (Hess, 1968; Lewis, 1992), others claim a
richer and more complete understanding of the issues under investigation will be revealed
through focus groups (Asbury, 1995; Krueger, 1996; Vaughn, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996).
4
The key distinction between focus groups and interviews according to Kennedy,
Kools and Krueger (2001) is the rich data that are produced from the interaction between
group members. Lederman (1990) proposes that, as a result of the synergistic interaction
which takes place, focus groups generate more than the sum of individual inputs. Given the
social nature of focus groups (Krueger, 1994), participating children have the opportunity to
hear the opinions of others. In these circumstances participants can develop ideas that have
already been proposed, challenge these ideas or suggest new ideas of their own.
Ronen, Rosenbaum, Law and Streiner (2001) argue that the group context reflects the
manner in which individuals form opinions in the real world (i.e., through interacting and
conversing with others). However, according to Lewis (1992), one potential drawback of
focus groups is that children may tag onto the views of others without necessarily reflecting
on their meaning or value. Furthermore, she warns that group interviews may be more likely
to produce statements in line with group norms.
The dynamic within individual interviews is fundamentally different. Indeed, some
would argue that the one-on-one situation between an adult and a child can create a power
imbalance for children (Donaldson, 1978). When the interview takes place in a school, this
may further complicate the situation by creating an environment similar to a test, resulting in
the expectation amongst children that they must produce correct answers (Kellett & Ding,
2004). Some of the unique advantages claimed for individual interviews over focus group
interviews include the ability to obtain more in-depth information from individuals, and the
greater control of the interviewer over the interview process relative to the unpredictable
nature of group interaction (Morgan, 1997). Interviews also allow the researcher to locate
specific ideas with particular individuals (Denscombe, 2003), which is not always possible
within focus groups.
5
However, while numerous claims are made regarding the value of focus groups over
individual interviews (Levine & Zimmerman, 1996; Lewis, 1992; Morgan, 1997; Vaughn et
al., 1996) and vice versa (Kitzinger, 1994), there is an absence of empirical data to support
many of these claims (Seal, Bogart & Ehrhardt, 1998). Indeed, much of our knowledge of
focus groups is based on conventional wisdom (Wooten & Reed, 2000) and has not been
subject to empirical scrutiny through a direct comparison of data sets (Morgan, 1997).
In one of the few studies which compared children’s responses in individual and
group interviews, Michell (1999) found that issues concerning personal and family
difficulties were more likely to be vocalised in personal interviews with 11- to 12-year-olds.
Similarly, in a study of adolescent boys on the topic of heterosexual behaviour, Wight (1994)
noted that the participants were more forthright in their expressions of unacceptable ways to
treat girls in the context of individual interviews. He also noted that more macho views were
expressed in individual interviews which took place after (as compared with before) the focus
groups, thus possibly reflecting the influence of group norms.
A small number of additional studies comparing data from interviews and focus
groups have been conducted with adult participants. In one such study the authors
constructed a one-page summary of the themes that emerged from focus group and individual
interview data (Seal et al., 1998). When independent raters assessed these summaries they
found that individual interviews produced a greater range of themes than focus groups.
However, the authors argued that the group interaction provided insight into group norms that
was unobtainable from the individual interviews. In a further study using a different
analytical approach, Fern (1982) compared the number of unique ideas in transcripts from
focus groups and individual interviews. He concluded that individual interviews generated
more ideas than focus groups, thus contradicting the claims of numerous writers in the field.
6
Aside from the above considerations on the nature of data produced by individual
research methods, a child-centred approach requires consideration of children’s experiences
of participating in different interview formats (e.g., group versus individual). Hill (2006)
states that, while researchers often form judgements on children’s level of engagement and
enjoyment, these observations are frequently unsystematic in nature. At present we know
little about children’s opinions on different research methods, and there is a need to extend
the principles of ‘listening to children’s voices’ to the debate on the choice of research
methods.
For some children, particularly those who are more reticent or inhibited, one-on-one
interviews may be more conducive to disclosing details of their lives because they provide a
private and confidential setting (Lewis, 1992). In contrast, it has been argued that there may
be safety in numbers (Kitzinger, 1994) and the peer context may facilitate self-disclosure
(Kennedy et al., 2001). In one of the few studies which sought children’s preferences for
individual versus group interviews, Punch (2002) found that, in comparison with a general
school-based sample, children who were in residential care expressed a greater preference for
individual interviews. This was primarily due to their concerns regarding disclosure of
information to their peers. Children are obviously not a homogeneous group and their
preferences may vary depending on the topic under consideration, the interview sample, as
well as individual differences in personality and other such personal factors.
The goal of the present study is to compare the relative merits of focus groups and
individual interviews with children for the purposes of exploratory research. This paper
draws on a subset of data collected as part of an exploratory investigation into children’s
understanding of psychological problems among their peers (Hennessy & Heary, 2006). The
questions put to children focused not on their personal experiences but on their understanding
of psychological problems displayed by hypothetical peers. The current analyses do not set
7
out to establish the optimum research method. This is a futile task, as both methods have the
potential to capture the views of children when conducted in a developmentally appropriate
manner. Instead, the authors are interested in using the comparison to provide information
that will help researchers who are trying to make a decision about which method might be
best for them in any given project. The first question asked is: which method produces the
greatest number of unique ideas? The second question focuses on children’s evaluations of
their participation in individual interviews relative to focus groups. The final aim of this
study is to illustrate the differences in the level of elaboration of responses produced by the
two methods.
Method
Participants
Participants were a convenience sample of 116 children attending three co-educational public
primary and secondary schools in Dublin, Ireland. Among the two primary-school groups, 37
pupils (M = 8.4 years, SD = 6.0 months) were in second class and 40 were in fifth class (M =
11.5 years, SD = 3.9 months). The third group comprised 39 second-year students from a
secondary school (M = 14.3 years, SD = 5.3 months). There were equal numbers of boys and
girls. Parents were sent a letter describing the research and were asked for written permission
to request their child’s participation. All children gave verbal assent following a description
of the nature of the research and what their participation would involve.
Procedure
Two methods of data collection were used: focus groups and individual interviews. Children
were randomly assigned to one or the other method. All focus groups were single-sex and
involved five children from the same age group, one moderator and one observer (the two
8
authors). In total 60 children took park in focus groups.
Interviews were one-on-one
encounters between a child and one of the two authors. In total 56 children took park in
interviews. Individual interviews and focus groups took place in the children’s schools in
empty classrooms and were audio-recorded. For both data collection methods the researchers
began by introducing themselves and chatting generally about school activities. Audio-tapes
from the interviews and focus groups were transcribed and transferred to the NUD*IST
qualitative data management programme (Qualitative Solutions & Research, 2001) to
facilitate a full audit trail of all stages of the coding.
Format of individual interviews and focus groups
Interviews and focus groups followed the same format. Participants were read short vignettes
describing the behaviour of six children with the addition of a statement that the children
described were fictional. Three of the vignette characters were described as having behaviour
consistent with common childhood psychological problems (i.e., attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], conduct disorder and depression) and three were described
as having positive attributes (i.e., popularity, academic ability and musical ability). The
clinical vignettes used in the study were adapted from examples in Carr (1999) and validated
with 14 clinical psychologists practising in Ireland. For the purposes of the present paper the
analysis focuses on the open-ended question about the causes of behaviour for the vignette
describing the child with ADHD. This vignette was presented second and, therefore,
represents a time in the interview/focus group when participants had some practice answering
questions but were not tired. In the focus groups and individual interviews, the
moderator/interviewer followed the vignette with a series of questions. If the child(ren) did
not respond to a question, it was rephrased to ensure comprehension. When a participant
answered, a neutral prompt such as ‘do you have any other ideas?’ or ‘anything else?’ was
9
used to probe for more information. If a participant’s response was ambiguous, then
clarification was sought (see transcript extracts below). The only difference in the
questioning style between focus groups and interviews was that in the former the moderator
typically thanked each child by name following a contribution in order to facilitate
transcription.
Following each interview/focus group, participants were given a short questionnaire
which asked for details of their date of birth and gender. It also included three questions
about the experience of taking part in the research. The first question asked them to rate how
much they enjoyed taking part in the research on a scale ranging from not at all (1) to very
much (4). The second question asked whether they felt that they had a chance to say
everything they wanted to say and was rated on a scale from no, almost nothing (1) to yes,
everything (4). The third question asked whether they believed that the research was a good
way for people of their age to talk about important topics and was rated on a scale from
definitely not (1) to yes, definitely (4). A final open-ended question asked the participants if
they would like to comment on any other aspect of taking part in the research. Responses to
this final question are not analysed in the present paper.
Coding interview data
Verbatim transcripts of focus groups and individual interviews were used as the basis for
coding and analysis of data. In order to conduct a meaningful comparison between ideas
generated in focus groups and individual interviews, the transcripts from the individual
interviews were combined into virtual groups following a system described by Fern (1982).
This process involved assigning interview transcripts randomly to ‘groups’ of the same sex
and age. Not all of these groups contained five members because four fewer children
10
participated in interviews than in focus groups. Coding the transcripts, as described below,
then took place in an identical manner for the focus groups and the virtual groups.
Both authors read each of the transcripts and classified participants’ contributions into
one of the following five categories. First, a relevant and unique idea was defined as a
statement expressing a meaningful explanation of behaviour that was relevant and had not
previously been expressed in the focus group/virtual group. Second, a relevant idea was
defined as a statement expressing either: (a) a meaningful explanation of behaviour that did
not add significantly to a previous explanation (i.e., this code was partly determined by
previous contributions); or (b) a relevant and meaningful comment on behaviour (i.e., the
comment did not provide an explanation of any type). Third, an idea that was defined as
irrelevant did not address the topic being discussed. Fourth, children who responded to the
question by stating that they did not know or could not suggest what might have caused the
behaviour were coded as don’t know. Fifth, no code was used to designate ‘yes’ and ‘no’
responses to questions or fragments of sentences. Examples of these categories are presented
in Table 1. Inter-rater reliability was calculated on 100% of transcripts and a Cohen’s kappa
of .73 was observed. Divergences were ultimately resolved through discussion.
Table 1 about here
Data Analysis
Data analysis was concerned with three research questions: (a) Do focus groups or individual
interviews produce a greater number of relevant and unique ideas? (b) Do children differ
significantly in their evaluation of the experience of participating in individual interviews and
focus group? (c) Are there differences between focus groups and individual interviews in the
level of elaboration of responses? Different methods of data analysis were adopted for each
question. For the first, content analysis was used to generate quantitative data that could be
11
used in parametric statistical analyses. For the second, the use of rating scales made nonparametric statistics a more appropriate choice for analysis. For the third, qualitative analysis
was used to compare the elaboration of responses in individual interviews and focus groups
as reflected in the transcripts.
Results
The first research question relates to differences in the diversity of ideas produced by
individual interviews and focus groups. In order to make this comparison the total number of
relevant and unique ideas was calculated for each of the focus groups and the virtual groups.
This total was then used to calculate the proportion of relevant and unique ideas per group
participant (proportions were used since not all virtual groups were the same size). This
proportion was then assigned as an individual score to each member of that group. These data
are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 about here
Comparison of focus group and interview data was made using a 3  2 (Age 
Interview Method) ANOVA. The dependent variable was proportion of relevant and unique
ideas. The three levels of the independent variable of age were 8, 11 and 14 years, and the
interview methods were individual interview and focus group. There was no interaction
between age and interview method, F(2, 114) = 0.95, p > .05, and so the main effects were
examined. There was no main effect for age, F(1, 115) = 1.18, p > .05, but there was a main
effect for interview method F(1, 115) = 73.60, p < .001. A comparison of the means
presented in Table 2 indicates that for all three age groups individual interviews produced a
greater number of relevant and unique ideas than focus groups.
12
Focus groups and interviews were also compared on participants’ responses to the
questionnaire about the experience of participation. The distribution of ratings is presented in
Table 3. Chi-square statistics were used to compare the distribution of ratings on focus
groups and interviews at each age. Because so few participants used the lower end of the
rating scale (see Table 3), only the top two ratings were included in these analyses. The
Bonferroni correction was applied and the  adjusted to .005 to take account of the number
of statistics that were being calculated. The results indicate that observed frequencies did not
differ significantly from the expected frequencies in children’s ratings of their enjoyment of
participating in focus groups and interviews at any age: second class 2(1, N = 37) = 2.70, p >
.005; fifth class 2(1, N = 38) = 1.21, p > .005); second year 2(1, N = 35) = 4.57, p > .005.
The results also indicated that observed frequencies did not differ significantly from the
expected frequencies in children’s belief that the method in which they participated allowed
them the chance to say everything: second class 2(1, N = 35) = 3.73, p > .005; fifth class
2(1, N = 40) = 0.11, p > .005; second year 2(1, N = 36) = 0.56, p > .005. Finally, there were
no significant differences between observed and expected frequencies in children’s ratings of
whether they believed that the method was a good way to talk to people of their age: second
class 2(1, N = 36) = 0.56, p > .005; fifth class 2(1, N = 39) = 0.01, p > .005; second year
2(1, N = 38) = 3.71, p > .005. Since more than 25% of cells had expected frequencies of < 5,
caution is advised in interpreting the following three statistics: second class responses to
enjoyment of taking part and believing they had a chance to say everything; fifth class
responses to the statement on having a chance to say everything they wanted.
The final aim of the present paper is to illustrate the different levels of elaboration that
result from discussion in individual interviews and focus groups. Our definition of
elaboration is the extent to which children added detail to their own contributions on the
causes of ADHD and any clarification or disagreement with another person’s contribution.
13
Differences in level of elaboration between individual interviews and focus groups are
immediately apparent from reading the transcripts. The interview transcripts clearly follow a
question-and-answer format: the interviewer asked a question, the participant responded and
the interviewer then probed for more information or moved on to the next question. This
format is illustrated from the following segment of an interview with D, a 14-year-old boy:
Interviewer
And what do you think would make someone like Jake do those
kind of things?
D
He might be seeking attention.
Interviewer
Right.
D
Or he might be quite troubled.
Interviewer
OK. What sort of things do you think would be likely to make
you troubled?
D
Well maybe he’s from a poor background or
Interviewer
OK, and [by] poor do you mean kind of poor with not a lot of
money or
D
He might be treated badly by his family.
While children of all ages generally answered each of the questions asked, 8 out of 17
(47%) of the 8-year-old participants answered ‘don’t know’ to all questions in this section of
the interview as did 1 out of 20 (5%) of the 11-year-olds and 2 out of 39 (5%) of 14-yearolds. This can have the effect of hindering the flow of discussion, an effect which is less
apparent in focus groups. In a focus group, the ‘don’t know response’ is less likely to feature
as an individual participant is not forced to respond. Indeed, the other participants can
sometimes support the silent members of the group or offer an interpretation of their silence.
This is illustrated by the following section of transcript from a focus group with 11-year-old
girls:
T
He might have been born hyperactive or something.
Many
[Laughter]
Interviewer
What do you think Rachel?
14
[Pause]
A
She probably wanted a pet story.
During the focus groups children of all ages tended to elaborate on one another’s
contributions by extending the contribution of another member, disagreeing or offering a
counter argument. The transcript below is taken from a focus group with 11-year-old girls
and shows how the original contribution made by J is subsequently elaborated by B and then
by J herself:
Interviewer
And what do you think might make somebody like Jake do the
things that he does?
J
If his family were never there for him.
Interviewer
Would that mean that his family wasn’t at home with him?
J
Yeah, like if he was allowed do whatever he wanted
….
B
Maybe he’s just an only child and he’s able to do anything.
J
He’s spoiled rotten.
In this next edited section of a transcript from a focus group of 14-year-old girls, the
original contribution made by A and affirmed by many group members is subsequently
dismissed by B, who suggests that the explanation for the behaviour described must be
judged in part on its severity:
A
If you’re too good in class people won’t like you.
C
Yeah
….
Interviewer
Okay. But do you think that people are likely to choose not to
work well in order to have people like them?
Many
Yeah
….
D
And some just aren’t bothered.
15
Interviewer
OK, so you think it’s possible that this is someone who actually
wanted to be liked and who decided not to
B
Well, not if he finds it hard to sit down and can’t stop fidgeting.
That’s obviously more than just attention and popularity.
These contrasting examples from the focus groups and interviews illustrate the fact that the
nature of the discussion that takes place using these two methods can be very different and is
not necessarily captured accurately by an analysis of the number of unique ideas that emerge.
The researcher would need to bear these differences in mind when making a choice about
which method to adopt.
Discussion
The objectives of the present study were threefold: to compare individual interviews and
focus groups in terms the number of unique ideas to emerge; the extent to which children
elaborated their ideas and children’s evaluations of taking part in each of these methods.
The findings of the current study indicate that significantly more unique ideas about
the causes of ADHD emerged from individual interviews than from focus groups in all age
groups studied. The results also indicated that there were no significant differences in
children’s evaluations of the experience of participating in individual interviews when
compared to focus groups in any of the participating age groups. Finally, qualitative analysis
of the transcripts suggests that focus groups produced greater elaboration of the topics
discussed than did individual interviews.
The results obtained regarding differences in the number of unique ideas produced are
in line with a previous experimental investigation that compared the diversity of ideas to
emerge from focus groups and individual interviews (Fern, 1982). While Fern’s study was
conducted with adult participants the present study extends these findings to children
16
between the ages of 8 and 14 years. Fern (1982) concluded that ‘the difference between focus
groups and individual interviews appeared to be a result of the group process which
attenuated the productivity of the individuals in groups’ (p. 12). Further explanations for the
wider range of ideas to emerge from individual interviews could be due to the greater burden
on the individual to explain themselves (Agar & MacDonald, 1995), and the increased time
available to share more information within a one-on-one session (Morgan, 1997).
Few studies have involved a comparative investigation of children’s experiences of
taking part in different research methods. The current study found no significant differences
between the group and individual interview format amongst any of the three age groups
studied. Overall, the children had positive views about their research participation
irrespective of the interview format. This perhaps could be explained due to the tendency of
children to provide more extreme ratings when asked about their subjective experiences
(Chambers & Johnston, 2002). Within the current study, the failure of children to use the full
range of the rating scale created difficulties in statistical analyses due to low expected cell
frequencies. The authors, therefore, would encourage further investigation of children’s
views of research methods and techniques since, in order to be child-centred, researchers
must invite children to evaluate the tools of their trade. Within the current study, discussion
centred on children’s views of imaginary peers who were depicted through vignettes and did
not pertain to personally relevant information. Thus further investigation of the factors
associated with children’s views of individual research methods is required.
It is commonly claimed that the superiority of focus groups relates to the richness of
the data collected (e.g., Vaughn et al., 1996). It remains inherently difficult to test this
hypothesis. However, the current study examined the issue of elaboration – which is one
aspect of richness – from a qualitative perspective. Numerous examples were observed in
which the contributions of individual children served to trigger or stimulate ideas in others.
17
These resulted in children either adding to the contributions of others or indeed contradicting
the responses of their fellow participants. This exchange helped to reveal more about each
idea than could be expressed by any one child in a single contribution. In this respect the
findings of the study are consistent with Mayall’s (1993) account of her conversations with
two and more children when she noted that ‘the social situation encouraged the children to
talk with each other, rather than answer questions: to spark off ideas, to argue, to develop and
refine points’ (p. 468). The findings are also consistent with the synergism and stimulation
that Hess (1968) reported as features of focus group interaction.
The current study is one of the few studies which have systematically compared the
data to emerge from individual interviews and focus groups using similar research materials
and with a common research question. However, caution must be exercised due to the
unrepresentative nature of the sample. In addition, further direct comparison of research
methods using different research topics (i.e., more personally relevant issues), varying group
composition factors and exploring alternative means of evaluating the output obtained is to be
encouraged.
It is clear that no one qualitative method is the solution to all our research problems.
The current research suggests that both individual and focus groups have the potential to
elicit the views of children and both appear to receive similar satisfaction ratings. However,
the ultimate choice of method may depend on the purpose of the study. If diversity and
originality of ideas underlie one’s research questions, then individual interviews may be the
method of choice. Thus in cases of exploratory research or where qualitative research is being
used in the development of a child-friendly questionnaire, there may be advantages to using
individual interviews due to the range of ideas that emerge. In cases where the exploration of
shared and contradictory perspectives is important, then focus groups may work best. In other
18
cases, researchers may have the luxury of taking a dual approach. However, one must be
mindful that the process of analysis is somewhat different for each interview type.
While qualitative research methods have increasingly been embraced by
developmental psychologists and childhood researchers as a means of exploring children’s
subjective worlds, there has been some complacency in subjecting these methods to empirical
scrutiny. This problem is not confined to childhood research, but is commonplace throughout
the social sciences. There is a need to move beyond the simple acceptance of conventional
wisdom and to engage in more thorough assessments of the pros and cons of different
qualitative research methods. The current study discounts the myth that focus groups are best
due to the range of unique ideas they can produce. Yet it provides support for arguments
about the richness of focus group data. However, there remain a number of untested
assumptions regarding the benefits of focus groups over individual interviews that require
investigation in order to assist childhood researchers in their decision-making processes
regarding research methods.
19
References
Agar, M. & MacDonald, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organisation, 54,
78-86.
Asbury, J.E. (1995). Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 414420.
Carr, A. (1999). The handbook of child and adolescent clinical psychology. London:
Routledge.
Chambers, C.T. & Johnston, C. (2002). Developmental differences in children’s use of rating
scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 27-36.
Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide for small scale research projects.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana Press.
Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size,
acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 19, 1-13.
Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, S. & Hill, M. (2005). Researching children’s experiences: Methods and
methodological issues. In S. Greene & D.M. Hogan (Eds.), Researching children’s
experiences: Approaches and methods (pp. 1-21). London: Sage.
Heary, C. & Hennessy, E. (2002). The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health care
research. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 47-57.
Hennessy, E. & Heary, C. (2005). Exploring children’s views through focus groups. In S.
Greene and D.M. Hogan (Eds.), Researching children’s experiences: Approaches
and methods (pp. 236-252). London: Sage.
20
Hennessy, E. & Heary, C. (2006). The development of children’s understanding of common
psychological problems. Manuscript in preparation.
Hess, J. M. (1968). Group interviewing. In R.L. King (Ed.), New science of planning (pp. 5184). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hill, M. (2006). Children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and
consultation. Childhood, 13, 69-89.
Kellett, M. & Ding, S. (2004). Middle childhood. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett
& C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 161174). London: Sage.
Kennedy, C., Kools, S. & Krueger, R. (2001). Methodological considerations in children’s
focus groups. Nursing Research, 50, 184-187.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction
between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103-121.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal,
311, 299-302.
Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
Krueger, R.A. (1996). Group dynamics and focus groups. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life
and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 397-402). Philadelphia:
Lippincott-Raven.
Lederman, L.C. (1990). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as a
technique for data collection. Communication Education, 38, 117-127.
Levine, I.S. & Zimmerman, J. D. (1996). Using qualitative data to inform public policy:
Evaluating ‘Choose to defuse’. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 363-377.
Lewis, A. (1992). Group child interviews as a research tool. British Educational Research
Journal, 18, 413-421.
21
Mayall, B. (1993). Keeping healthy at home and school: It’s my body so it’s my job.
Sociology of Health & Illness, 15, 464-487.
Michell, L. (1999). Combining focus groups and interviews: Telling it how it is; telling it
how it feels. In R.S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research
(pp. 36-46). London: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
Qualitative Solutions & Research, (2001). NUD*IST: N4 [Qualitative data analysis
program]. Victoria, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd.
Punch, S. (2002). Interviewing strategies with young people: The ‘secret box’, stimulus
material and task-based activities. Children & Society, 16, 45-56.
Ronen, G.M., Rosenbaum, P., Law, M. & Streiner, D.L. (2001). Health-related quality of life
in childhood disorders: A modified focus group technique to involve children.
Quality of Life Research, 10, 71-79.
Seal, D.W., Bogart, L.M. & Ehrhardt, A.A. (1998). Small group dynamics: The utility of
focus group discussions as a research method. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research
& Practice, 2, 253-266.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S. & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and
psychology. London: Sage.
Wight, D. (1994). Boys’ thoughts and talk about sex in a working class locality of Glasgow.
Sociological Review, 42, 703-737.
Wooten, D.B. & Reed, A. (2000). A conceptual overview of the self-presentational concerns
and response tendencies of focus group participants. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 9, 141-153.
22
Table 1 Examples of the coding categories used in the qualitative analysis
1. Relevant and unique
Maybe his parents don’t listen to him and
they don’t pay enough attention to him
(14-year-old girl, interview)
2. Relevant (a): a meaningful explanation This code was dependent on previous
of behaviour that did not add
answers to the question as illustrated in
significantly to a previous explanation
the following section of interview in
or
which the second reference to anger was
coded as relevant but not unique:
Interviewer: What would make Jake do
those things?
Participant: He might be very angry.
Interviewer: What do you think might
make him angry?
Participant: If he doesn’t get something,
he will go angry.
(8-year-old boy, interview)
Relevant (b): a relevant and
He seems like he might be, like, always
meaningful comment on behaviour
have something to say or something.
(14-year-old girl, interview)
3. An idea that was defined as irrelevant
did not address the topic being
My dog is dead quiet.
(8-year-old boy, focus group)
discussed
4. Children who responded to the
Interviewer: What do you think makes
question by stating that they did not
someone like Jake do things like that?
know or could not suggest what might
Participant: I don’t know, em, em, I don’t
have caused the behaviour were coded
know.
as don’t know
(14-year-old girl, interview)
5. No code was used to designate ‘yes’
Interviewer: OK, will I go on to the next
and ‘no’ responses to questions or
question?
fragments of sentences
Participant: OK.
(8-year-old girl, interview)
23
Table 2 Proportion of relevant and unique contributions per person
Interview type
2nd class
(n = 37)
Mean
SD
5th class
(n = 40)
Mean
SD
2nd year
(n = 39)
Mean
SD
Focus group
0.50
0.23
0.55
0.22
0.50
0.22
Individual
1.05
0.60
1.25
0.26
1.32
0.11
24
Table 3 Distribution of ratings on research participation questionnaire by type of interview
and age
Focus group (n = 60)
Individual interview (n = 56)
th
nd
nd
2 class 5 class 2 year 2 class
5th class 2nd year
nd
Enjoyed taking part
Very much
Quite a lot
Not really
Not at all
Chance to say everything
Yes, everything
Yes, most things
Not really
Not at all
19
(95%)
1
(5%)
0
11
(55%)
9
(45%)
0
8
(40%)
10
(50%)
2
(10%)
0
13
(76.5%)
4
(23.5%)
0
0
0
11
(55%)
8
(40%)
0
13
(65%)
7
(35%)
0
1
(5%)
13
(65%)
5
(25%)
2
(10%)
0
2
(10.5%)
15
(78.9%)
2
(10.5%)
0
0
6
(30%)
13
(65%)
1
(5%)
0
14
(82.4%)
2
(11.8%)
1
(5.9%)
0
12
(60%)
8
(40%)
0
6
(31.6%)
11
(57.9%)
1
(5.3%)
1
(5.3%)
15
(75%)
4
(20%)
0
16
(80%)
4
(20%)
0
6
(30%)
14
(70%)
0
15
(88.2%)
2
(11.8%)
0
15
(75%)
4
(20%)
0
11
(57.9%)
7
(36.8%)
0
1
(5%)
0
0
0
1
(5%)
1
(5.3%)
0
0
Good way to talk to
young people
Yes, definitely
Yes, quite good
No, not really
Definitely not good