SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

 Sample (n)
A subset of the population.

A sample (n) is a selection of respondents for

a research study to represent the total
population (N).

Making a decision about sample size for a

survey is important because information from
the sample can generalized to a larger
population. According to Hunter, the Survey has
been likened to taste-testing soup – a few
teaspoon tell what the whole pot tastes like.
 The key to the validity of any survey
is randomness. Just as the soup
must be stirred in order for the few
teaspoons to represent the whole
pot, when sampling a population, the
group must be stirred before
respondents are selected. It is critical
that respondents be chosen
randomly so that the survey results
can be generalized to the whole
population.
 How well the sample represents the
population is gauged in margin of error and
confidence level.

 Margin of Error – is the allowable error

margin in research.

 Confidence Level – is the probability that a

statistical estimate of a population is also
true for the population based on the sample
survey.
 SLOVIN’s Formula in
determining the Sample Size
 The sample size
can be obtained
using the formula

 Where
 n = sample
size
 N = total
population
 e = margin of
Example:
A researcher wants to conduct a survey. If the
population of a big university is 35,000, compute for
the sample size if the margin of error is 5%.

35,000
n = ----------------------- 2
1 + (35,000) (.05)
35,000
n = -----------------------
1 + (35,000) (.0025)
35,000
n = -----------------------
1 + 87.5
35,000
n = -----------------------
88.5
n= 395
 Types of Sampling

1. Probability Sampling

A probability sampling method is any

method of sampling that utilizes some form
of random selection. In order to have a
random selection method, you must set up
some process of procedure that assures that
the different units in your population have
equal probabilities of being chosen.
2. Non- Probability Sampling

The difference between non-

probability and probability sampling
is that non-probability sampling does
not involve random selection and
probability sampling does.
Probability Sampling
Techniques
1. Simple Random Sampling
2. Systematic Sampling
3. Stratified Sampling
4. Cluster (Area) Sampling
5. Multi-Stage Sampling
Non-Probability Sampling

1. Accidental, Haphazard or
Convenience Sampling
2. Purposive Sampling
3. Modal Instance Sampling
4. Expert Sampling
5. Quota Sampling
6. Heterogeneity Sampling
7. Snowball Sampling
 Probability Sampling

 A method of sampling that utilizes

some form of random selection. In
order to have a random selection
method, you must set up some
process of procedure that assures that
the different units in your population
have equal probabilities of being
chosen, such as picking a name out of
a hat, or choosing the short straw.

These days, we tend to use

computers as the mechanism for
generating random numbers as the
Simple Random Sampling

 The simplest form of random sampling

is called simple random sampling.

 Objective: To select n units out of N

such that each N has an equal chance
of being selected.

 Procedure: Use a table of random

numbers, a computer random number
generator, or a mechanical device to
select the sample.
 Let’s assume that we are doing some
research with a small service agency
that wishes to assess client’s views of
quality of service over the past year.

 First, we have to get the sampling frame

organized. To accomplish this, we’ll go
through agency records to identify every
client over the past 12 months.

 Then, we have to actually draw the

sample. Decide on the number of clients
you would like to have in the final
sample.
 To actually draw the sample, you
have several options. You could print
off the list of the total population,
tear them into separate strips, put
the strips in a hat, mix them up,
close your eyes and pull out the
samples which will serve as your
respondents.
Stratified Random Sampling

 Also sometimes called proportional or

quota random sampling, involves
dividing your population into
homogeneous subgroups and then
take a simple random sample in each
subgroup.

 Divide the population into non-

overlapping groups (i.e, strata) N1,
N2, N3, …Ni, such that N1 + N2 + N3
+ … + Ni = N. Then do a simple
random sample of f = n/N in each
strata.
There are several major reasons why
stratified sampling is preferred over
simple random sampling.
First, it assures that you will be able to
represent not only the overall
population, but also key subgroups of
the population.
When we use the same sampling
fractions within strata we are
conducting proportionate stratified
random sampling.
When we use different sampling
fractions in the strata, we call this
disproportionate stratified random
sampling.
Second, stratified random sampling
will generally have more statistical
precision than simple random
sampling. This will only be true if the
strata or groups are homogeneous.
If they are, we expect that the
variability within-groups is lower than
the variability for the population as a
whole. Stratified sampling capitalizes
on that fact.
 For example, the population of
clients for our agency can be divided
into three groups: Caucasian, African-
American and Hispanic-American.

 Furthermore, let’s assume that both

the African-Americans and Hispanic-
Americans are relatively small
minorities of the clientele (10% and
5% respectively).
 If we just did a simple random
sample of n = 100 with a sampling
fraction of 10%, we would expect by
chance alone that we would only get
10 and 5 persons from each of our
two smaller groups. And, by chance,
we could get fewer than that!
 If we stratify, we can do better.

 First, let’s determine how many

people we want to have in each group.
For example we still want to take a
sample of 100 from the population of
1000 clients over the past year. But
we think that in order to say anything
about subgroups we will need at least
25 cases in each group.
 So, let’s sample 50 Caucasians, 25
African-Americans, and 25 Hispanic-
Americans. We know that 10% of the
population, or 100 clients, are
African-American. If we randomly
sample 25 of these, we have a
within-stratum sampling fraction of
25/100 = 25%.
 Similarly, we know that 5% or 50
clients are Hispanic-American. So our
within-stratum sampling fraction will
be 25/50 = 50%. Finally, by
subtraction we know that there are
850 Caucasian clients.

Our within-stratum sampling

fraction for them is 50/850 = about
5.88%.
 Because the groups are more
homogeneous within-group than
across the population as a whole, we
can expect greater statistical
precision (less variance).

And, because we stratified, we know

we will have enough cases from each
group to make meaningful subgroup
inferences.
Systematic Random Sampling

 Here are the steps you need to follow in

order to achieves a systematic random
sample:
 Number the units in the population from
1 to N
 Decide on the n (sample size) that you
want or need
 k = N/n = the interval size
 randomly select an integer between 1 to
k
 then take every kth unit
 For example let’s assume that we
have a population that only has N=100
people in it and that you want to take a
sample of n=20. To use systematic
sampling, the population must be listed
in a random order.

The sampling fraction would be f =

20/100 = 20%. In this case, the interval
size, k, is equal to N/n = 100/20 = 5.
Now, select a random integer from 1 to
5.
 In our example, imagine that you
chose 4. Now, to select the sample,
start with the 4th unit in the list and
take every k-th unit (every 5th,
because k=5) You would be sampling
units 4, 9, 14, 19, and so on to 100
and you would wind up with 20 units
in your sample.
Cluster (Area) Random Sampling

 The problem with random sampling

methods when we have to sample a
population that’s disbursed across a
wide geographic region is that you will
have to cover a lot of ground
geographically in order to get to each
of the units you sampled. Your
interviewers are going to have a lot of
traveling to do.
 It is precisely this problem that cluster
or area random sampling was
invented.
 In cluster sampling, we follow these
steps:
 Divide the population into clusters
(usually along geographic boundaries)
 randomly sample clusters
 measure all units within sampled
clusters
 For instance, in the figure we see a
map of the Provinces of the
Philippines.

Let’s say that we have to do a survey

of town governments that will require
us going to the towns personally. If we
do simple random sample nation-wide
we’ll have to cover the entire country
geographically.
 Instead, we decide to do a cluster
sampling of five Provinces (marked in
red in the figure). Once these are
selected, we go to every town
government in the five areas. Clearly
this strategy will help us to
economize on our mileage.
 Cluster or area sampling, then, is
useful in situations like this, and is
done primarily for efficiency of
administration.

Note also, that we probably don’t

have to worry about using this
approach if we are conducting a mail
or telephone survey because it
doesn’t matter as much (or cost more
or raise inefficiency) where we call or
send letters to.
 Multi-Stage Sampling

In most real applied social research, we

would use sampling methods that are
considerably more complex than the
previous simple sampling method.

The principle here is that we can

combine the simple methods in a variety
of useful ways that help us address our
sampling needs in the most efficient and
effective manner possible.

 When we combine several sampling

methods, we call this multi-stage
sampling.
 For example, consider the idea of
sampling New York State residents for
face-to-face interviews. Clearly we
would want to do some type of cluster
sampling as the first stage of the
process.

We might sample townships or

census tracts throughout the state.
But in cluster sampling we would then
go on to measure everyone in the
clusters we select.
 Even if we are sampling census
tracts we may not be able to
measure everyone who is in the
census tract.

So, we might set up a stratified

sampling process within the clusters.
In this case, we would have a two-
stage sampling process with
stratified samples within the cluster
samples.
 Or, consider the problem of sampling
students in grade schools. We might
begin with a national sample of school
districts stratified by economics and
educational level.

Within selected districts, we might do

a simple random sample of schools.
Within schools, we might do a simple
random sample of classes or grades.
And, within classes, we might even do a
simple random sample of students.
 In this case, we have three or four
stages in the sampling process and we
use both stratified and simple random
sampling.

By combining different sampling

methods we are able to achieve a rich
variety of probabilistic sampling
methods that can be used in a wide
range of social research contexts.
 Non-probability Sampling

The difference between non-probability and

probability sampling is that non-probability
sampling does not involve random selection
and probability sampling does. Does that
mean that non-probability samples aren’t
representative of the population? Not
necessarily.

But it does mean that non-probability

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 non-probability 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 non-probabilistic
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 non-probabilistic
alternatives.
 We can divide non-probability
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
 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 non-representative) 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 sample 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 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.
 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 event 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 sub-case 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 advantage is that even the
experts can be, and often are, wrong.
 Quota Sampling

In quota sampling, you select people

non-randomly 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 46% 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’ve not concerned with having
numbers that match the proportion
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 non-probabilistic

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
proportionally. 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.