Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ward, V. M.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, L. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ward, V. M.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, L. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 266-283 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9101500207

The Comparability of Focus Group and Survey Results

Three Case Studies

Victoria M. Ward

Columbia University

Jane T. Bertrand

Tulane University

Lisanne F. Brown

, Tulane University

This article compares focus group findings with those of surveys on the same topics in three studies in order to determine the extent to which the two methodologces yield similar results. The studies included two follow-ups of tubal ligation acceptors (in Guatemala and Zaire) and research concerning attitudes toward vasectomy in Honduras. On 88% of the variables, the results from the two methods were similar; moreover, in half of the cases, the focus groups provided additional detail. The research suggests that focus groups and surveys provide consistent results on the types of variables for which focus groups are appropriate.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Contemporary EthnographyHome page
J. A. Hollander
The Social Contexts of Focus Groups
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, October 1, 2004; 33(5): 602 - 637.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Pediatr PsycholHome page
C. M. Heary and E. Hennessy
The Use of Focus Group Interviews in Pediatric Health Care Research
J. Pediatr. Psychol., January 1, 2002; 27(1): 47 - 57.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SexualitiesHome page
H. Frith
Focusing on Sex: Using Focus Groups in Sex Research
Sexualities, August 1, 2000; 3(3): 275 - 297.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Family and Consumer Sciences Research JournalHome page
M. E. B. Garrison, S. H. Pierce, P. A. Monroe, D. D. Sasser, A. C. Shaffer, and L. B. Blalock
Focus Group Discussions: Three Examples from Family and Consumer Science Research
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, June 1, 1999; 27(4): 428 - 450.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
V. M. Ward, D. Maine, J. McCarthy, and A. Kamara
A Strategy for the Evaluation of Activities To Reduce Maternal Mortality in Developing Countries
Eval Rev, August 1, 1994; 18(4): 438 - 457.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qual Health ResHome page
M. A. Saint-Germain, T. L. Bassford, and G. Montano
Surveys and Focus Groups in Health Research with Older Hispanic Women
Qual Health Res, August 1, 1993; 3(3): 341 - 367.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
W. G. Skogan and A. J. Lurigio
The Correlates of Community Antidrug Activism
Crime Delinquency, October 1, 1992; 38(4): 510 - 521.
[Abstract]