A methodological comparison between coding transcripts and videotapes of focus groups

Background: Coding from transcripts of focus groups is considered standard practice, but transcribing is labor-intensive. Objective: To compare the reliability and validity of coding videotapes vs. transcripts of focus group discussion. Methods: Two teams, each composed of one faculty member and two staff members, completed the coding. Both teams analyzed three focus groups with African American adults discussing influenza vaccination: One team watched DVDs of the focus groups, while the other team worked with transcripts. Coding focused on participants' responses to questions regarding knowledge about the flu and the flu shot, as well as reasons for and against receiving the flu shot. After independently reviewing the DVDs or transcripts, each team met separately to discuss findings and reconcile any discrepancies. Then, members of both teams met to compare findings. Results: There was excellent agreement within and between the two groups. The groups agreed on coding of 144 statements (89% agreement). The transcript team coded 6 items that the video group did not, while the video team coded 11 items that the transcript team did not. Several of the discrepancies were due to errors in the transcripts and/or inability to decipher the tone of the statement from the transcripts. Conclusion: Coding directly from videotapes is a feasible option that provides high-quality data, is less labor intensive than coding from transcripts, and may reduce errors introduced in the transcription process. Moreover, the availability of non-verbal cues on video may enable more accurate coding of some statements.