Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI

By Kelly E. Caine. International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016

649 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity through Gender, Race, and Class (2017, methodology): “Our methods were informed by prior meta-reviews of the HCI community [19,29,33,56].”
The Experience Sampling Method on Mobile Devices (2017, methodology): “This number of participants is in line with the local standards in the HCI community (Caine 2016) (sample size has a mode of 12 and a median of 18).”
Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period (2018, background): “Other work has sought to examine practices of sample size reporting and sufficiency assessment across a range of disciplinary fields and research domains, from nutrition [34] and health education [32], to education and the health sciences [22, 27], information systems [30], organisation and workplac”
Sampling in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2020, background): “Reviewers should also consider local norms; for example, average sample sizes (Caine 2016).”
Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research (2019, neutral): “Similar confusion has been reported and addressed by Caine when it comes to choosing sample sizes in HCI [18].”