Assessing the Efficiency and Quality of Audio-Coding Versus Transcript Coding.

BACKGROUND

Manual transcription can be resource-consuming and time-consuming, while software-based audio coding offers a potentially cheaper and faster alternative.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the time efficiency, cost effectiveness, and researcher experience of thematic analysis of audio recordings versus transcripts.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods crossover study with two conditions (audio coding and transcript coding) and three categories of coders (novice, competent, and expert). Ten researchers coded 18 interview segments using NVivo, half in each format. Demographics, coding times, and coding experiences were collected.

RESULTS

On average, transcript coding took less time than audio coding, and NVivo experience was negatively associated with coding time across conditions. Economic analysis showed that audio was <60% the cost of transcript coding. Audio coding was perceived as being more difficult, yet coders agreed that both methods led to similar code quality. Audio coding may be a cost-saving alternative to transcript coding.

DISCUSSION: The potential cost savings, coupled with the more "naturalistic" source of audio data, may make audio coding an appropriate approach to consider for the qualitative researcher, despite coder perceptions of its greater difficulty. Audio coding should be considered as part of a qualitative project to enhance immersion in the data or improve coding efficiency. However, this approach should be preceded by careful consideration of the most effective computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software and extensive training and familiarization with audio coding procedures before analysis.