In-Person versus Online Focus Group Discussions: A Comparative Analysis of Data Quality

Introduction: Researchers have begun conducting online Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) as a qualitative research tool; however, there is scant methodological literature examining the data quality of online versus in-person FGDs.
Methods: Two online FGDs were compared to two randomly selected in-person FGDs (of 8). Both formats used identical guides are were conducted by the same moderator. FGDs were transcribed, coded thematically, and analyzed comparatively.
Results: In-person FGDs were shorter than online FGDs (mean: 120 v. 93 minutes) but resulted in larger word counts (mean 15,907 v. 4,981). However, FGD content was similar: of 27 thematic codes identified, 23 appeared in both, 2 in in-person only, and 1 in online only. Discussion: Online FGDs were acceptable and methodologically successful. In-person FGDs generated greater data depth; online FGDs generated greater data breadth. Codes identified in online FGDs only suggest that sensitive topics may emerge more candidly in online FGDs due to heightened anonymity. However, technical constraints of online FGDs led to less sharing of in-depth stories among participants, and probing for detail proved difficult. Online FGDs, particularly for sensitive subjects, may be an effective method of increasing data breadth and should be considered for parallel use with in-person FGDs.