INTRODUCTION TO SAMPLING

Researchers usually cannot make direct observations of every individual in the

population they are studying. Instead, they collect data from a subset of
individuals – a sample – and use those observations to make inferences about
the entire population.

Ideally, the sample corresponds to the larger population on the characteristic(s)

of interest. In that case, the researcher's conclusions from the sample are
probably applicable to the entire population.

This type of correspondence between the sample and the larger population is
most important when a researcher wants to know what proportion of the
population has a certain characteristic – like a particular opinion or a
demographic feature. Public opinion polls that try to describe the percentage of
the population that plans to vote for a particular candidate, for example, require
a sample that is highly representative of the population.

Probability samples and convenience samples

Two general approaches to sampling are used in research. With probability
sampling, all elements (e.g., persons, households) in the population have some
opportunity of being included in the sample, and the mathematical probability
that any one of them will be selected can be calculated.

With nonprobability sampling, in contrast, population elements are selected on

the basis of their availability (e.g., because they volunteered) or because of the
researcher's personal judgment that they are representative. The consequence is
that an unknown portion of the population is excluded (e.g., those who did not
volunteer). One of the most common types of nonprobability sample is called a
convenience sample – not because such samples are necessarily easy to recruit,
but because the researcher uses whatever individuals are available rather than
selecting from the entire population.

Because some members of the population have no chance of being sampled, the
extent to which a convenience sample – regardless of its size – actually
represents the entire population cannot be known.
Recruiting a probability sample is not always a priority for researchers. A
scientist can demonstrate that a particular trait occurs in a population by
documenting a single instance.

For example, the assertion that all lesbians are mentally ill can be refuted by
documenting the existence of even one lesbian who is free from
psychopathology.

Another situation in which a probability sample is not necessary is when a

researcher wishes to describe a particular group in an exploratory way.

For example, interviewing 25 people with AIDS (PWAs) about their

experiences with HIV could provide valuable insights about stress and coping,
even though it would not yield data about the proportion of PWAs in the general
population who share those experiences.

Types of probability samples

Many strategies can be used to create a probability sample. Each starts with a
sampling frame, which can be thought of as a list of all elements in the
population of interest (e.g., names of individuals, telephone numbers, house
addresses, census tracts). The sampling frame operationally defines the target
population from which the sample is drawn and to which the sample data will
be generalized.

Probably the most familiar type of probability sample is the simple random
sample, for which all elements in the sampling frame have an equal chance of
selection, and sampling is done in a single stage with each element selected
independently (rather than, for example, in clusters).

Somewhat more common than simple random samples are systematic samples,
which are drawn by starting at a randomly selected element in the sampling
frame and then taking every nth element (e.g., starting at a random location in a
telephone book and then taking every 100th name).

In yet another approach, cluster sampling, a researcher selects the sample in

stages, first selecting groups of elements, or clusters (e.g., city blocks, census
tracts, schools), and then selecting individual elements from each cluster (e.g.,
randomly or by systematic sampling).

An Example

Suppose some researchers want to find out which of two mayoral candidates is
favored by voters. Obtaining a probability sample would involve defining the
target population (in this case, all eligible voters in the city) and using one of
many available procedures for selecting a relatively small number (probably
fewer than 1,000) of those people for interviewing. For example, the researchers
might create a systematic sample by obtaining the voter registration roster,
starting at a randomly selected name, and contacting every 500th person
thereafter. Or, in a more sophisticated procedure, the researchers might use a
computer to randomly select telephone numbers from all of those in use in the
city, and then interview a registered voter at each telephone number. (This
procedure would yield a sample that represents only those people who have a
telephone.)

Several procedures would also be available for recruiting a convenience sample,

but none of them would include the entire population as potential respondents.
For example, the researchers might ascertain the voting preferences of their own
friends and acquaintances. Or they might interview shoppers at a local mall. Or
they might publish two telephone numbers in the local newspaper and ask
readers to call either number in order to "vote" for one of the candidates. The
important feature of these methods is that they would systematically exclude
some members of the population (respectively, eligible voters who do not know
the researchers, do not go to the shopping mall, and do not read the newspaper).
Consequently, their findings could not be generalized to the population of city
voters.

Non Probability samples

The difference between nonprobability and probability sampling is that
nonprobability sampling does not involve random selection and probability
sampling does. Does that mean that nonprobability samples aren't representative
of the population? Not necessarily. But it does mean that nonprobability
samples cannot depend upon the rationale of probability theory. At least with a
probabilistic sample, we know the odds or probability that we have represented
the population well. We are able to estimate confidence intervals for the
statistic. With nonprobability samples, we may or may not represent the
population well, and it will often be hard for us to know how well we've done
so. In general, researchers prefer probabilistic or random sampling methods
over nonprobabilistic ones, and consider them to be more accurate and rigorous.
However, in applied social research there may be circumstances where it is not
feasible, practical or theoretically sensible to do random sampling. Here, we
consider a wide range of nonprobabilistic alternatives.

We can divide nonprobability sampling methods into two broad types:

accidental or purposive. Most sampling methods are purposive in nature
because we usually approach the sampling problem with a specific plan in
mind. The most important distinctions among these types of sampling methods
are the ones between the different types of purposive sampling approaches.

Types of Non Probability samples

Accidental, Haphazard or Convenience Sampling

One of the most common methods of sampling goes under the various titles
listed here. I would include in this category the traditional "man on the street"
(of course, now it's probably the "person on the street") interviews conducted
frequently by television news programs to get a quick (although
nonrepresentative) reading of public opinion. I would also argue that the typical
use of college students in much psychological research is primarily a matter of
convenience. (You don't really believe that psychologists use college students
because they believe they're representative of the population at large, do you?).
In clinical practice,we might use clients who are available to us as our sample.
In many research contexts, we sample simply by asking for volunteers. Clearly,
the problem with all of these types of samples is that we have no evidence that
they are representative of the populations we're interested in generalizing to --
and in many cases we would clearly suspect that they are not.

Purposive Sampling

In purposive sampling, we sample with a purpose in mind. We usually would

have one or more specific predefined groups we are seeking. For instance, have
you ever run into people in a mall or on the street who are carrying a clipboard
and who are stopping various people and asking if they could interview them?
Most likely they are conducting a purposive sample (and most likely they are
engaged in market research). They might be looking for Caucasian females
between 30-40 years old. They size up the people passing by and anyone who
looks to be in that category they stop to ask if they will participate. One of the
first things they're likely to do is verify that the respondent does in fact meet the
criteria for being in the sample. Purposive sampling can be very useful for
situations where you need to reach a targeted sample quickly and where
sampling for proportionality is not the primary concern. With a purposive
sample, you are likely to get the opinions of your target population, but you are
also likely to overweight subgroups in your population that are more readily
accessible.

All of the methods that follow can be considered subcategories of purposive

sampling methods. We might sample for specific groups or types of people as in
modal instance, expert, or quota sampling. We might sample for diversity as in
heterogeneity sampling. Or, we might capitalize on informal social networks to
identify specific respondents who are hard to locate otherwise, as in snowball
sampling. In all of these methods we know what we want -- we are sampling
with a purpose.

• Modal Instance Sampling

In statistics, the mode is the most frequently occurring value in a distribution. In
sampling, when we do a modal instance sample, we are sampling the most
frequent case, or the "typical" case. In a lot of informal public opinion polls, for
instance, they interview a "typical" voter. There are a number of problems with
this sampling approach. First, how do we know what the "typical" or "modal"
case is? We could say that the modal voter is a person who is of average age,
educational level, and income in the population. But, it's not clear that using the
averages of these is the fairest (consider the skewed distribution of income, for
instance). And, how do you know that those three variables -- age, education,
income -- are the only or even the most relevant for classifying the typical
voter? What if religion or ethnicity is an important discriminator? Clearly,
modal instance sampling is only sensible for informal sampling contexts.

• Expert Sampling

Expert sampling involves the assembling of a sample of persons with known or

demonstrable experience and expertise in some area. Often, we convene such a
sample under the auspices of a "panel of experts." There are actually two
reasons you might do expert sampling. First, because it would be the best way
to elicit the views of persons who have specific expertise. In this case, expert
sampling is essentially just a specific subcase of purposive sampling. But the
other reason you might use expert sampling is to provide evidence for the
validity of another sampling approach you've chosen. For instance, let's say you
do modal instance sampling and are concerned that the criteria you used for
defining the modal instance are subject to criticism. You might convene an
expert panel consisting of persons with acknowledged experience and insight
into that field or topic and ask them to examine your modal definitions and
comment on their appropriateness and validity. The advantage of doing this is
that you aren't out on your own trying to defend your decisions -- you have
some acknowledged experts to back you. The disadvantage is that even the
experts can be, and often are, wrong.

• Quota Sampling

In quota sampling, you select people nonrandomly according to some fixed

quota. There are two types of quota sampling: proportional and non
proportional. In proportional quota sampling you want to represent the major
characteristics of the population by sampling a proportional amount of each. For
instance, if you know the population has 40% women and 60% men, and that
you want a total sample size of 100, you will continue sampling until you get
those percentages and then you will stop. So, if you've already got the 40
women for your sample, but not the sixty men, you will continue to sample men
but even if legitimate women respondents come along, you will not sample
them because you have already "met your quota." The problem here (as in much
purposive sampling) is that you have to decide the specific characteristics on
which you will base the quota. Will it be by gender, age, education race,
religion, etc.?

Non proportional quota sampling is a bit less restrictive. In this method, you
specify the minimum number of sampled units you want in each category. here,
you're not concerned with having numbers that match the proportions in the
population. Instead, you simply want to have enough to assure that you will be
able to talk about even small groups in the population. This method is the
nonprobabilistic analogue of stratified random sampling in that it is typically
used to assure that smaller groups are adequately represented in your sample.

• Heterogeneity Sampling

We sample for heterogeneity when we want to include all opinions or views,

and we aren't concerned about representing these views proportionately.
Another term for this is sampling for diversity. In many brainstorming or
nominal group processes (including concept mapping), we would use some
form of heterogeneity sampling because our primary interest is in getting broad
spectrum of ideas, not identifying the "average" or "modal instance" ones. In
effect, what we would like to be sampling is not people, but ideas. We imagine
that there is a universe of all possible ideas relevant to some topic and that we
want to sample this population, not the population of people who have the ideas.
Clearly, in order to get all of the ideas, and especially the "outlier" or unusual
ones, we have to include a broad and diverse range of participants.
Heterogeneity sampling is, in this sense, almost the opposite of modal instance
sampling.

• Snowball Sampling

In snowball sampling, you begin by identifying someone who meets the criteria
for inclusion in your study. You then ask them to recommend others who they
may know who also meet the criteria. Although this method would hardly lead
to representative samples, there are times when it may be the best method
available. Snowball sampling is especially useful when you are trying to reach
populations that are inaccessible or hard to find. For instance, if you are
studying the homeless, you are not likely to be able to find good lists of
homeless people within a specific geographical area. However, if you go to that
area and identify one or two, you may find that they know very well who the
other homeless people in their vicinity are and how you can find them.

Sample Size
The sample size is very simply the size of the sample. If there is only one
sample, the letter "N" is used to designate the sample size. If samples are taken
from each of "a" populations, then the small letter "n" is used to designate size
of the sample from each population. When there are samples from more than
one population, N is used to indicate the total number of subjects sampled and is
equal to (a)(n). If the sample sizes from the various populations are different,
then n1 would indicate the sample size from the first population, n2 from the
second, etc. The total number of subjects sampled would still be indicated by N.

When correlations are computed, the sample size (N) refers to the number of
subjects and thus the number of pairs of scores rather than to the total number of
scores.

The symbol N also refers to the number of subjects in the formulas for testing
differences between dependent means. Again, it is the number of subjects, not
the number of scores.

Sample Size Calculator Terms: Confidence Interval &

Confidence Level
The confidence interval is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in
newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a
confidence interval of 4 and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer you
can be "sure" that if you had asked the question of the entire relevant population
between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer.

The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a
percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who
would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence
level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can
be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.

When you put the confidence level and the confidence interval together, you
can say that you are 95% sure that the true percentage of the population is
between 43% and 51%. The wider the confidence interval you are willing to
accept, the more certain you can be that the whole population answers would be
within that range.

For example, if you asked a sample of 1000 people in a city which brand of cola
they preferred, and 60% said Brand A, you can be very certain that between 40
and 80% of all the people in the city actually do prefer that brand, but you
cannot be so sure that between 59 and 61% of the people in the city prefer the
brand.

Factors that Affect Confidence Intervals

There are three factors that determine the size of the confidence interval for a
given confidence level:

• Sample size
• Percentage
• Population size

Sample Size

The larger your sample size, the more sure you can be that their answers truly
reflect the population. This indicates that for a given confidence level, the larger
your sample size, the smaller your confidence interval. However, the
relationship is not linear (i.e., doubling the sample size does not halve the
confidence interval).

Percentage

Your accuracy also depends on the percentage of your sample that picks a
particular answer. If 99% of your sample said "Yes" and 1% said "No," the
chances of error are remote, irrespective of sample size. However, if the
percentages are 51% and 49% the chances of error are much greater. It is easier
to be sure of extreme answers than of middle-of-the-road ones.

When determining the sample size needed for a given level of accuracy you
must use the worst case percentage (50%). You should also use this percentage
if you want to determine a general level of accuracy for a sample you already
have. To determine the confidence interval for a specific answer your sample
has given, you can use the percentage picking that answer and get a smaller
interval.

Population Size

How many people are there in the group your sample represents? This may be
the number of people in a city you are studying, the number of people who buy
new cars, etc. Often you may not know the exact population size. This is not a
problem. The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is
irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total
population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is
equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a
city of 100,000. For this reason, The Survey System ignores the population size
when it is "large" or unknown. Population size is only likely to be a factor when
you work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members
of an association).

The confidence interval calculations assume you have a genuine random sample
of the relevant population. If your sample is not truly random, you cannot rely
on the intervals. Non-random samples usually result from some flaw in the
sampling procedure. An example of such a flaw is to only call people during the
day and miss almost everyone who works. For most purposes, the non-working
population cannot be assumed to accurately represent the entire (working and
non-working) population.

Sampling error

In statistics, sampling error or estimation error is the error caused by

observing a sample instead of the whole population.

An estimate of a quantity of interest, such as an average or percentage, will

generally be subject to sample-to-sample variation. These variations in the
possible sample values of a statistic can theoretically be expressed as sampling
errors, although in practice the exact sampling error is typically unknown.
Sampling error also refers more broadly to this phenomenon of random
sampling variation.

The likely size of the sampling error can generally be controlled by taking a
large enough random sample from the population, although the cost of doing
this may be prohibitive; see sample size and statistical power for more detail. If
the observations are collected from a random sample, statistical theory provides
probabilistic estimates of the likely size of the sampling error for a particular
statistic or estimator. These are often expressed in terms of its standard error.

Sampling error can be contrasted with non-sampling error. Non-sampling error

is a catch-all term for the deviations from the true value that are not a function
of the sample chosen, including various systematic errors and any random errors
that are not due to sampling. Non-sampling errors are much harder to quantify
than sampling error.