Objectives -- After completing this module, you will be able to:

• Assess the implications of sampling decisions and procedures in terms of their impact on the confidence that someone can have in research results and conclusions (internal validity)
• Assess the implications of sampling decisions and procedures in terms of their impact on your ability to generalize research results statistically
• Assess the implications of sampling decisions and procedures in terms of their impact on your ability to general research results and conclusions theoretically
• Assess the implications of sampling decisions and procedures in terms of their impact on the explanatory power of a study
• Design sampling procedures that are adequate for your own research objectives, including conducting needs assessments and evaluating programs
  

Assigned Materials

Topic 1: Are all non-random, non-probability samples "bad" or can we use these samples to reach scientifically justifiable conclusions?

This is a pretty good discussion of non-probability sampling. I am MUCH more critical of convenience (availability) sampling than this speaker. Non-Probability Sampling

Bernard, Chapter 7, pp. 162-177

Topic 2: So you've decided you will need a non-random, non-probability sample. What do you have to do to make sure it is "good enough" to reach generalizable conclusions?

Learning Guide to Non-Probability Sampling The learning guide for this week has specific sections for each of the three readings listed below. They are all valuable in my view.

Malterud, K., Siersma, V.D. & Guassora, A.D. (2016) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research 26(13), 1753-1760. The best I have seen AND short. This is the primary reading for this week. Please read with care.

Topp, L., Barker, B. & Degenhardt, L. (2004) The external validity of results derived from ecstasy users recruited using purposive sampling strategies. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 73(1), 33-40. Read quickly. It's a pretty good example of purposive sampling. You do not need to be concerned with other aspects of the article -- focus on the sampling.

Auerswald, C., Greene, K., Minnis, A., Doherty, I. et al. (2004) Qualitative assessment of venues for purposive sampling of hard-to-reach youth: An illustration in a Latino community. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 31(2), 133-138. Read quickly for ideas on sampling -- the articles shows how to develop a sampling strategy, using more than one type of sample.

Topic 3: Does what we discussed last week still "count"? Please have these available in class

Types of Samples

Basics of Sampling

The Goals of Research Design (from Week 4)

Other Advance Preparation

You will complete Assignment 2 in a group. I will assign your members. Prior to class today, your group should select one article from List A and one article from List B that you all agree to use for Assignment 2. Each of you should have a copy of the two articles available for your use in class. You will receive a group grade for these two assignments. You will also be evaluated by your peers in terms of your contribution to the group project.

List A Articles for Assignment 2

List B Articles for Assignment 2

Have the instructions for Assignment 2 available in class.

Have the flow chart for articles you read available in class

Have the example of a completed flow chart available in class

Additional Resources about Sampling This is a good week to share materials with your colleagues. This is a substantive list of materials about sampling that you can use to complete Assignments 3, 4 & 5. Share a few and earn some extra points!

Abrams, L.S. (2010) Sampling "hard to reach" populations in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work 9(4), 536-550.

Ahern, K. & LeBrocque, R. (2005) Methodological issues in the effects of attrition: simple solutions for social scientists. Field Methods 17(1), 53-69.

Alessi, M.G. & Miller, C.A. (2012) Comparing a convenience sample against a random sample of duck hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(2), 155-158.

Ancresen, E.M., Diehr, P.H. & Luke, D.A. (2004) Public health surveillance of low-frequency populations. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 25-52.

Barratt, M.J., Ferris, J.A. & Lenton, S. (2014) Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: Taking off the blindfold. Field Methods 27(1), 3-21.

Beckett, M. (2000) Converging health inequalities in later life -- an artifact of mortality selection? Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41, 106-119.

Benoot, C., Hannes, K. & Bilsen, J. (2016) The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Medical Research Methodology 16, 1-12.

Bethlehem, J. (2016) Solving the nonresponse problem with sample matching. Social Science Computer Review 34(1), 59-77.

Bernard, R.H. (2000). Social Research Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Pages 143-172. E-reserve

Brick, J.M. (2011) The future of survey sampling. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5), 872-888.

Bryant, J. (2014) Using respondent-driven sampling with "hard to reach" marginalised young people: Problems with slow recruitment and small network size. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17(6), 599-611.

Connelly, N.A., Brown, T.L. & Decker, D.J. (2003) Factors affecting response rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Society & Natural Resources 16(6), 541-549.

De Boni, R., Do Nascimento Silva, P.L., Bastos, F.I., Pechansky, F. et al. (2012) Reading the hard-to-reach: A probability sampling method for assessing prevalence of driving under the influence after drinking in alcohol outlets. PLoS ONE 7(4), 1-9.

Draugalis, J.R. & Plaza, C. (2009) Best practices for survey research reports revisited: Implications of target population, probability sampling, and response rate. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 73(8), 1-3.

Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N.K., Choubak, M. & Crann, S.E. (2015) Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 14(5), 1-10.

Emery, S., Lee, J., Curry, S.J., Johnson, T. et al. (2010) Finding needles in a haystack: A methodology for identifying and sampling community-based youth smoking cessation programs. Evaluation Review 34(1), 35-51.

Etter, J & Perneger, T.V. (2000) Snowball sampling by mail: application to a survey of smokers in the general population. International Journal of Epidemiology 29, 43-48.

Evans, K.L., Greenwood, J.J.D. & Gaston, K.J. (2007) The positive correlation between avian species richness and human population density in Britain is not attributable to sampling bias. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16(3), 300-304.

Gile, K.J. & Handcock, M.S. (2010) Respondent-driven sampling: An assessment of current methodology. Sociological Methodology 40(1):, 285-327.

Glick, P. (2008) Restating the case: The benefits of diverse samples for theory development. Psychological Inquiry 19(2), 78-83.

Griffith, D.A., Morris, E.S. & Thakar, V. (2016) Spatial autocorrelation and qualitative sampling: The case of snowball type sampling designs. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106(4), 773-787.

Guo, Y., Li, X., Fang, X., Lin, X. et al. (2011) A comparison of four sampling methods among men having sex with men in China : Implications for HIV/STD surveillance and prevention. AIDS Care 23(11), 1400-1409.

Gupta, S., Shuaib, M., Becker, S., Rahman, M.M. & Peters, D.H. (2011) Multiple indicator cluster survey 2003 in Afghanistan: Outdated sampling frame and the effect of sampling weights on estimates of maternal and child health coverage. Journal of Health, Population & Nutrition 29(4), 388-399..

Henry, G.T. (2008) Practical sample design. PP. 33-59 in Practical Sampling, Sage, London. e-reserve

Jacobson, C.A., Brown, T.L. & Scheufele, D. (2007) Gender-biased data in survey research regarding wildlife. Society & Natural Resources 20(4), 373-377.

Kondo, M.C., Bream, K.D.W., Barg, F.K. & Branas, C.C. (2014) A random spatial sampling method in a rural developing nation. BMC Public Health 14(1), 1-15.

Korner, T. & Nimmergut, A. (2004) Using an access panel as a sampling frame for voluntary household surveys. Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe 21(1), 33-52.

Livingston, M., Dietze, P., Ferris, J. et al. (2013) Surveying alcohol and other drug use through telephone sampling: A comparison of landline and mobile phone samples. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13(1), 1-7.

Miller, P.G., Johnston, J. Dunn, M., Fry, C.L. & Degenhardt, L. (2010) Comparing probability and non-probability sampling methods in ecstasy research: Implications for the internet as a research tool. Substance Use & Misuse 45(3), 437-450.

Mookherji, S. & LaFond, A. (2013) Strategies to maximize generalization from multiple case studies: Lessons from the Africa Routine Immunization System Essentials (ARISE) project. Evaluation 19(3), 284-303.

Murray, G.R., Rugeley, C.R., Mitchell, D. & Mondak, J.J. (2013) Convenient yet not a convenience sample: Jury pools as experimental subject pools. Social Science Research 42(1), 246-253.

Nguyen, P. (2004) The census, sampling and African Americans. Western Journal of Black Studies 28(1), 292-302.

Noy, C. (2008) Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(4), 327-344.

Ozdemir, R.S. , St. Louis, K.O. & Topbas, S. (2011) Public attitudes toward stuttering in Turkey: Probability versus convenience sampling. Journal of Fluency Disorders 36(4), 262-267.

Pike, G.R. (2007) Assessment measures: Using samples in assessment research. Assessment Update 19(2), 12-14.

Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 47(11) 1451-1458.

Reddy, S & Davalos, L.M. (2003) Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. Journal of Biogeography 30, 1719-1727.

Roy, K., Zvonkovic, A., Goldberg, A., Sharp, E. & LaRossa, R. (2015) Sampling richness and qualitative integrity: Challenges for research with families. Journal of Marriage and Family 77(1), 243-260.

Rumpf, H.J., Bischof, G., Hapke, U., Meyer, C. & John, J. (2000) Studies on natural recovery from alcohol dependence: sample selection bias by media solicitation? Addiction 95(5), 765- 775.

Sadler, G.R., Lee, H.C., Lim, R.S. & Fullerton, J. (2010) Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nursing & Health Sciences 12(3), 369-374.

Seawright, J. & Gerring, J. (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2), 294-308.

Simmons, A.D. & Bobo, L.D. (2015) Can non-full-probability internet surveys yield useful data? A comparison with full-probability face-to-face surveys in the domain of race and social inequality attitudes. Sociological Methodology 45(1), 357-387.

Slep, A.M.S., Heyman, R.E., Williams, M.C., VanDyke, C.E. & O'Leary, S.G. (2006) Using random telephone sampling to recruit generalizable samples for family violence studies. Journal of Family Psychology 20(4), 680-689.

Sydor, A. (2013) Conducting research into hidden or hard-to-reach populations. Nurse Researcher 20(3), 33-37.

Tuckett, A. (2004) Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities. Nurse Researcher 12(1), 47-60.

White, V.M., Hill, D.J. & Effendi, Y. (2004) How does active parental consent influence the findings of drug-use surveys in schools? Evaluation Review 28(3), 246-252.

Yin, R.K. (2013) Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation 19(3), 321-332.

Wretman, J. (2010) Reflections on probability vs nonprobability sampling. In M. Carlson, H. Nyquist & M. Villani (eds.), Official Statistics -- Methodology and Applications in Honour of Daniel Thorburn, pp. 29-35. Available at http://officialstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bok03.pdf

Zhu, J.J.H., Mo, Q., Wang, F. & Lu, H. (2010) A random digit search (RDS) method for sampling of blogs and other user-generated content. Social Science Computer Review. 29(3), 327-339.