AN

ASSIGNMENT ON

PROBABILITY SAMPLING

MARKETING RESEARCH (MBA 687) PREPARED BY

MADUAKOR CHIDINMA IFEOMA ADP11/12/H/0845

SUBMITTED TO

DR J O ADETAYO DEPT OF MANAGEMENT & ACCOUNTING, OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE, OSUN STATE.

JULY, 2013

\ SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
Research studies are distinct events that involve a particular group of participants. However, researchers usually intend on answering a general question about a larger population of individuals rather than a small select group. Therefore, the main aim of psychological research is to be able to make valid generalizations and extend their results beyond those who participate. For this reason, the selection of participants is a very crucial issue when planning research. Obviously, researchers cannot collect data from every single individual from their population of interest, since this would be extremely expensive and take a very long time! So instead they use a small group of individuals called a sample. The sample is chosen from the population and is used to represent the population. Researchers use sampling techniques to select the participants for their sample these techniques help to minimise cost whilst maximizing generalizability. I am going to be discussing the NonProbability sampling techniques and methods, and considering the issue of sampling bias and the problems associated in research.

There are a variety of different sampling methods available to researchers to select individuals for a study. Sampling method fall into two categories: PROBABILITY SAMPLING Historical background Probability-based sampling is a development of the last 60 to 70 years. Around the turn of the century Kiar, in Norway, was an advocate for sampling. In the early work, purposive methods (ie non-probability sampling) predominated, but in 1934 Neyman published a paper which laid the basis of sampling theory, and explained the advantages of random sampling over purposive selection. (He used a number of examples in his paper, particularly an unsuccessful purposive sub-sample drawn from the 1921 Italian Census by the Italian census bureau.) Over the next 20 or so years, the theory of probability-based sample design was further developed, and the major statistical offices were all won over to probability-based design. The first generation of sampling textbooks appeared around 1950. Probability Sampling includes some form of random selection in choosing the elements. Greater confidence can be placed in the representativeness of probability samples. This type of sampling involves a selection process in which each element in the population has an equal and independent chance of being selected. Four main methods include: Simple Sampling

Sratified Sampling Cluster Sampling and Systematic Sampling

Non-probability sampling: The elements that make up the sample are selected by non random methods. This type of sampling is less likely than probability sampling to produce representative samples. Even though this is true, researchers can and do use non-probability samples. The three main methods are: Convenience Quota Purposive .

NON PROBABILITY SAMPLING The difference between non-probability and probability sampling is that nonprobability 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 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 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 f the population are chosen based on their relative ease of access. To sample friends, co-workers, or shoppers at a single mall, are all examples of convenience sampling. Such samples are biased because researchers may unconsciously approach some kinds of respondents and avoid others (Lucas 2012), and respondents who volunteer for a study may differ in unknown but important ways from others (Wiederman 1999).

Snowball sampling - The first respondent refers a friend. The friend also refers a friend, and so on. Such samples are biased because they give people with more social connections an unknown but higher chance of selection (Berg 2006).

Judgmental sampling or Purposive sampling - The researcher chooses the sample based on who they think would be appropriate for the study. This is used primarily when there is a limited number of people that have expertise in the area being researched.

Deviant Case - Get cases that substantially differ from the dominant pattern (a special type of purposive sample).

Case study - The research is limited to one group, often with a similar characteristic or of small size.

ad hoc quotas - A quota is established (say 65% women) and researchers are free to choose any respondent they wish as long as the quota is met. Even studies intended to be probability studies sometimes end up being nonprobability studies due to unintentional or unavoidable characteristics of the sampling method. In public opinion polling by private companies (or other organizations unable to require response), the sample can be self-selected rather than random. This often introduces an important type of error: selfselection bias. This error sometimes makes it unlikely that the sample will accurately represent the broader population. Volunteering for the sample may be determined by characteristics such as submissiveness or availability. The samples in such surveys should be treated as non-probability samples of the population, and the validity of the estimates of parameters based on them unknown.

REASONS FOR USING NON-PROBABILITY SAMPLING

No sampling frame is available. This is often true for the product dimension but less frequently so for the outlet dimension, for which business registers or telephone directories do provide frames, at least in some countries, notably in Western Europe, North America and Oceania. There is also the possibility of constructing tailor-made frames in a limited number of cities or locations, which are sampled as clusters in a first stage. For products, it may be noted that the product assortment exhibited in an outlet provides a natural sampling frame, once the outlet is sampled as a kind of cluster, as in the BLS sampling procedure presented above. So the absence of sampling frames is not a good enough excuse for not applying probability sampling. Bias resulting from nonprobability sampling is negligible. There is some empirical evidence to support this assertion for highly aggregated indexes. Dalen (1998b) and De Haan, Opperdoes and Schut (1999) both simulated cut-offsam pling of products within item groups. Dalen looked at about 100 groups of items sold in supermarkets and noted large biases for the subindices of many item groups, which however almost cancelled out after aggregation. De Haan, Opperdoes and Schut used scanner data and looked at three categories (coffee, babies napkins and toilet paper) and, although the bias for any one of these was large, the mean square error (defined as the variance plus the squared bias) was often smaller than that for pps sampling. Biases were in both directions and so could be interpreted to support Dale ns findings. The large biases for item groups could, however, still be disturbing. Both Dalen and De Haan,

Opperdoes and Schut report biases for single-item groups of many index points. We need to ensure that samples can be monitored for some time. If we are unlucky with our probability sample, we may end up with a product that disappears immediately after its inclusion in the sample. We are then faced with a replacement problem, with its own bias risks. Against this, it may happen that short-lived products have a different price movement from the price movement of long-lived ones and constitute a significant part of the market, so leaving them out will create bias. A probability sample with respect to the base period is not a proper probability sample with respect to the current period. It is certainly true that the bias protection offered by probability sampling is to a large extent destroyed by the need for non-probabilistic replacements later on. Price collection must take place where there are price collectors. This argument applies to geographical sampling only. It is, of course, cheaper to collect prices near the homes of the price collectors, and it would be difficult and expensive to recruit and dismiss price collectors each time a new sample is drawn. This problem can be reduced by having good coverage of the country in terms of price collectors. One way to achieve this is to have a professional and geographically distributed interviewer organization within the national statistical agency, which works on many surveys at the same time. Another way of reducing the problem is to have

a firststage sample of regions or cities or locations which changes only very slowly. The sample size is too small. Stratification is sometimes made so fine that there is room for only a very small sample in the final stratum. A random selection of 15 units may sometimes result in a final sample that is felt to be skewed or otherwise to have poor representativity properties. Unless the index for this small stratum is to be publicly presented, however, the problem is also small. The skewness of small low-level samples will even out at higher levels. The argument that sample size is too small has a greater validity when it relates to firststage clusters (geographical areas) that apply to most subsequent sampling levels simultaneously. Sampling decisions have to be taken at a low level in the organization. Unless price collectors are well versed in statistics, it may be difficult for them to perform probability sampling on site. Such sampling would be necessary if the product specification that has been provide centrally covers more than one product (price) in an outlet. Nevertheless, in the United States (U.S. BLS, 1997) field representatives do exactly this. In Sweden, where central product sampling (for daily necessities) is carried to the point of specifying well-defined varieties and package sizes, no sampling in the outlets is needed. In countries where neither of these possibilities is at hand, full probability sampling for products would be more difficult.

In some situations, there are thus valid reasons for using non-probability techniques. We discuss two such techniques below.

Cut-off sampling Cut-off sampling refers to the practice of choosing the n largest sampling units with certainty and giving the rest a zero chance of inclusion. In this context, the term largeness relates to some measure of size that is highly correlated with the target variable. The word cut-off refers to the borderline value between the included and the excluded units. In general, sampling theory tells us that cut-off sampling does not produce unbiased estimators since the small units may display price movements which systematically differ from those of the larger units. Stratification by size or pps sampling also has the advantage of including the largest units with certainty while still giving all units a non-zero probability of inclusion. If the error

criterion is not minimal bias but minimal mean square error (=variance+ squared bias) then, since any estimator from cut-off sampling has zero variance, cut-off sampling might be a good choice where the variance reduction more than offsets the introduction of a small bias. De Haan, Opperdoes and Schut (1999) demonstrate that this may indeed be the case for some item groups. Often, in a multi-stage sampling design there is room for only a very small number of units at a certain stage. Measurement difficulties that are sometimes associated with small units may then be a reason, in addition to large variances, for limiting price collection to the largest units.

Note that a hybrid design can also be applied in which there is a certainty stratum part, some probability sampling strata and a low cut-off point below which no sample at all is drawn. In practice, this design is very often used where the below cut-off section of the universe is considered insignificant and perhaps difficult to measure. A particular CPI practice that is akin to cut-off sampling is for the price collector to select the most sold product in an outlet, within a centrally defined specification. In this case, the sample size is one (in each outlet) and the cutoffrule is judgemental rather than exact, since exact size measures are only rarely available. In all cases of size-dependent sampling in an outlet, it is crucial to take a long-term view of size, so that temporarily large sales during a short period of reduced prices are not taken as a size measure. Such products will tend to increase in price in the immediate future much more than the product group which they represent and thus create a serious overestimating bias.

CONVENIENCE OR ACCIDENTAL SAMPLING Definition Distinctive Features 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" (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. 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 and in many cases we would clearly suspect that they are not. Distinctive Features

Convenience samples are also known as accidental or opportunity samples. The problem with all of these types of samples is that there is no evidence that they are representative of the populations to which the researchers wish to generalize. This approach is often used when the researcher must make use of available respondents or where no sampling frame exists. A good example is provided by my own experience of conducting evaluative research designed to explore the efficacy of community treatment programmes for sex offenders. Here an accidental sample of those men sentenced to treatment was used by necessity (Davidson, 2001). TV, radio station, newspaper and magazine polls and questionnaires are also an example of this type of sampling, where respondents may be asked to phone in or fill in a questionnaire.

PURPOSIVE SAMPLING Definition A form of non-probability sampling in which decisions concerning the individuals to be included in the sample are taken by the researcher, based upon a variety of criteria which may include specialist knowledge of the research issue, or capacity and willingness to participate in the research. Distinctive Features Some types of research design necessitate researchers taking a decision about the individual participants who would be most likely to contribute appropriate data, both in terms of relevance and depth. For example, in life history research, some potential participants may be willing to be interviewed, but may not be able to provide sufficiently rich data. Researchers may have to select a purposive sample based on the participants oral skills, ability to describe and reflect upon aspects of their lives, and experience of the specific focus of the research. A case study design is another type of research that often requires a purposive sample. Imagine that a research team wishes to explore the types of academic

support provided for students in a single high school. In selecting that school the researchers may need to take a variety of factors into account. They may want a school in which academic support is sufficiently innovative to make the final research report of wide interest in the profession. They will require a school in which the management are supportive of the research, and in that the teachers and students show a willingness to participate. The researchers may want a school that is exceptional in terms of overall academic performance, or that has an average level of attainment. Finally, they may prefer a school that is reasonably accessible for members of the research team. When all relevant factors have been considered, the research team will select the case study school, which will constitute the purposive sample. If it is appropriate, a purposive sample may be combined with a probability sample. Once the high school has been selected, a random sample of teachers and students could be selected from whom to collect data.

Evaluation The advantage of purposive sampling is that the researcher can identify participants who are likely to provide data that are detailed and relevant to the research question. However, in disseminating the findings, the researcher should make fully transparent the criteria upon which the sampling process was based. The principal disadvantage of purposive sampling rests on the subjectivity of the researcher's decision making. This is a source of potential bias, and a

significant threat to the validity of the research conclusions. These effects may be reduced by trying to ensure that there is an internal consistency between the aims and epistemological basis of the research, and the criteria used for selecting the purposive sample.

QUOTA SAMPLING Definition A non-probability method of selecting respondents for surveys. The interviewer begins with a matrix of the target population that is to be represented and potential respondents are selected according to that matrix. Quota sampling is also known as a purposive sample or a non-probability sample, whereby the objective is to select typical, or representative, subjects and the skill and judgment of selectors is deliberately utilized (Abrahamson, 1983).

Distinctive Features Quota sampling allows the researcher to control variables without having a sampling frame. This method is often used for market research because it does not require a list of potential respondents. The interviewer finds respondents, usually in public areas, who fit into the predetermined categories until the quotas are filled. To that end, quota sampling is a convenient and inexpensive method of research. If the interviewee is unavailable or refuses to participate

they can easily be replaced with another potential respondent who meets the same criteria. Evaluation Statisticians criticize quota sampling for its methodological weakness. Although the interviewer randomly chooses respondents he or she comes across on the street, quota sampling cannot be considered a genuinely random method of sampling because not every member of the population has an equal chance of survey selection (for example, those who are at work or at home). Therefore, the principles of statistical inference cannot be invoked. There are a number of factors that can result in research bias. First, interviewers may misjudge a potential respondent's characteristic, such as their age. Secondly, the interviewer runs the risk of subconsciously making a subjective judgment before approaching a potential respondent. As a result, the interviewer may not approach those deemed unfriendly and runs the risk of distorting the findings. This is also known as systematic bias (Abrahamson, 1983). Finally, quota sampling can never be truly representative because certain factors may prevent certain groups of people from being chosen for the research. For example, as noted above, market research conducted during the day may over-represent housewives shopping in the city centre and underrepresent office workers. Despite these limitations, quota sampling continues to be used because there are circumstances when random or stratified random sampling is not possible.

SNOWBALL SAMPLING Definition A form of non-probability sampling in which the researcher begins by identifying an individual perceived to be an appropriate respondent. This respondent is then asked to identify another potential respondent. The process is repeated until the researcher has collected sufficient data. Sometimes called chain letter sampling.

Distinctive Features Snowball sampling can be a useful technique in research concerned with behavior that is socially unacceptable or involves criminal activity. The nature of such activities may make it a virtually impossible task to identify all members of the research population; even identifying a few members can be very difficult. In the case of research on, say, shoplifting or car theft, the identification of a single willing respondent may be difficult. The first stage in the process usually involves a purposive sampling decision to identify one respondent who is willing to provide data. Once the data collection has been completed, the researcher asks the respondent to nominate another person who may be willing to provide the type of data required. The process continues

until either the researcher fails to make any new contacts, or the new data do not appear to add anything substantial to existing understanding. Snowball sampling can also be a relevant technique for groups of people who may feel lacking in confidence to participate in a research project. Such people could include the homeless, alcoholics, or those who have suffered illness or an assault. In such cases, they may have more confidence and be more likely to participate if they are approached by a person with similar experiences.

Evaluation The advantage of snowball sampling is that it enables the researcher to identify potential participants when it would otherwise be extremely difficult to do so. It is also a sampling strategy that demonstrates sensitivity to potential participants, in that they are identified by people with a similar experience. The disadvantage of the approach is that it is dependent upon each participant sufficiently understanding the nature of the research in order to be able to identify another suitable participant. The next nominated participant may have a limited or biased understanding of the research issue. In addition, the members of the snowball sample may have certain features in common which are uncharacteristic of the research population as a whole. The very fact that they are all acquainted with each other is a source of potential bias.

REFERENCES
1. Berg, Sven. (2006). "Snowball SamplingI," pp. 78177821 in

Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, edited by Samuel Kotz, Campbell Read, N. Balakrishnan, and Brani Vidakovic. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2. Deming WE (1960), "Sample Design in Business Research", John Wiley and Sons, New York. 3. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. 4. Neyman J, "On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 97, pp 558-606. 5. Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. (2003). In Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th ed.) (413-444). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 6. Smith TFM (1983), "On the validity of Inferences from Non-random Samples", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 146, pp 394-403. 7. Stephan FP and McCarthy PJ (1958), "Sampling Opinions", John Wiley and Sons, New York. 8. William M.K. Trochim,(2006) Research Methods Knowledge Base