906850
research-article2020
2020
JHLXX
XXXX10.1177/0890334420906850
10.1177/0890334420906850Journal of Human LactationBerndt
About Research
Sampling Methods
Andrea E. Berndt, PhD1
Abstract
Knowledge of sampling methods is essential to design quality research. Critical questions are provided to help researchers
choose a sampling method. This article reviews probability and non-probability sampling methods, lists and defines specific
sampling techniques, and provides pros and cons for consideration. In addition, issues related to sampling methods are
described to highlight potential problems.
Keywords
breastfeeding, non-probability sampling, probability sampling, sampling, sampling methods
In research, the population is the complete set of individuals,
events, or objects that exhibit the behaviors and/or possess
the characteristics of interest to the researcher (Elfil &
Negida, 2017; Omair, 2014). For example, imagine a nurse
researcher who is interested in the perceptions of first-time
breastfeeding mothers in the United States. Given the sheer
size of this population, the researcher could not possibly
access all of these women in a study. Instead, the researcher
would need to devise a strategy to identify a representative
subgroup of first-time breastfeeding mothers from the popu-
lation. This subgroup is called a sample, and the process of
selecting this subgroup from the population is the sampling
method (Shorten & Moorley, 2014). The sampling method
should be as rigorous as possible to ensure minimum error
and bias and to enhance maximum representativeness (Tyrer
& Heyman, 2016).
Sampling methods are categorized into probability or
non-probability methods (Omair, 2014; Tyrer & Heyman,
2016). Probability sampling methods incorporate an aspect
of random selection, which ensures that each case in the pop-
ulation has an equal likelihood of being selected (Shorten &
Moorley, 2014). Common types of probability methods
include random sampling, systematic sampling, stratified
sampling, and cluster sampling. Non-probability sampling
methods use an approach in which the sample is selected
based on the subjective judgment of the researcher instead of
using random selection (Elfil & Negida, 2017). Common
types of non-probability sampling methods include quota
sampling, purposive sampling, self-selection sampling, and
snowball sampling.
Choosing a sampling method requires a researcher to con-
sider multiple factors (e.g., the research question, the study
methodology, knowledge about the population of interest,
the size of the population of interest, the degree of similarity
or differences for cases in the population, and time and/or
Journal of Human Lactation
2020, Vol. 36(2) 224–226
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0890334420906850
https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334420906850
journals.sagepub.com/home/jhl
financial constraints) and the degree of confidence desired
for study conclusions along with generalizability (Elfil &
Negida, 2017; Shorten & Moorley, 2014). Table 1 presents
critical questions for researchers to consider in selecting a
sampling method. When the researcher is interested in a pop-
ulation that is relatively small, it may be possible for the
researcher to include all persons in the population in a study.
When this situation occurs, the study is called a census study.
In truth, however, most populations are too large to sample
completely. The sampling method assists the researcher in
selecting a representative sample and provides guidance on
how large the sample needs to be to ensure the degree of
confidence desired for conclusions and generalizability.
Quantitative research questions lend to either probability
or non-probability sampling methods, whereas qualitative
research questions are limited to non-probability sampling
methods. Tables 2 and 3 define each of the common types of
probability and non-probability methods and consider pros
and cons for each type of sampling method.
Some Concerns About Sampling
Methods
There is an assumption among many that probability sam-
pling methods are always more accurate in capturing the
essential characteristics of a population, but that is not always
the case. For probability sampling methods, the size of the
1
School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center, San
Antonio, TX, USA
Date submitted: January 27, 2020; Date accepted: January 27, 2020.
Corresponding Author:
Andrea E. Berndt, PhD, School of Nursing, UT Health San Antonio, 7703
Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Email: berndt@uthscsa.edu
Berndt 225

Table 1. Critical Questions to Help Researchers Choose the Appropriate Sampling Method.

Question Probability Sampling Non-Probability Sampling

Basic for selection? Random selection Non-random selection
Likelihood for sampling bias? Low High
Objective or Subjective Method? Objective Subjective
Opportunity for selection? Fixed and known Not specified and unknown
Type of inference? Statistical Analytical
Type of research? Confirmatory Exploratory, descriptive

Note. Table developed based on review from Elfil and Negida (2017), Shorten and Moorley (2014), Tyrer and Heyman (2016), and van Hoeven et al. (2015).

Table 2. Definitions of Probability Sampling Methods with Associated Pros and Cons.

Probability Sampling Methods

Sampling Method Pros Cons

Simple random sampling: Each person in
the population has an equal chance of
being selected.
Systematic sampling: Selection is based
on a systematic algorithm such as every
5th or 10th person.
Stratified random sampling: Sampling
involves dividing the population into
smaller groups called strata, which are
formed based on shared and/or unique
characteristics. A random sample from
each stratum is selected proportional
to the stratum’s size in the population.
Cluster sampling: Naturally occurring
groups are selected as sampling
clusters. For example, specific schools
in a district may be selected rather than
all schools in the district.
The process is easy to follow and
viewed as fair as each person can be
selected.
Easier to conduct than simple random
sampling and tends to select more
evenly across the population
A stratified sample should be more
representative of the population as
it considers shared and/or unique
characteristics during selection.
This approach should increase the
external validity and generalizability
of the study
Cluster sampling is highly economical
and feasible when dealing with large
populations. In addition, cluster
sampling usually avoids reduced
variation.
A complete and up-to-date list is needed
for all persons in the population. This
information is often not available.
The selection process can miss an important
characteristic of the population based on
the use of the systematic algorithm.
Stratified sampling is not useful when the
population cannot be exhaustively divided
into shared or unique characteristics.
Another problem exists when the strata
cannot be divided into appropriate
proportional sizes.
If the naturally occurring group selected as
a cluster has a bias, the population might
be assumed to also have that bias. Use of
selection rather than random probabilities
can increase error.

Note. Table developed based on review from Elfil &Negida (2017), Shorten & Moorley (2014), Tyrer & Heyman (2016), and van Hoeven et al., (2015).

population should be known (or closely estimated) and per-
sons in the population should be entered into a sampling
frame. Probability sampling methods work best when the
population of interest is large and when variations from the
true population parameters can be identified. Variations from
true population parameters are called sampling errors, and
these variations can best be identified when sufficiently large
samples are chosen.
One key expectation in published randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) is to include how the sample size was estimated.
Interestingly, a recent article (Tam et al., 2020) reviewed 223
articles with results from RCTs in 80 nursing journals to deter-
mine what information was included about sample size esti-
mation. Each article was reviewed to determine if all required
components were included to estimate the sample size, and if
the value for sample size was computed correctly. Of the 223
articles, 80 (35.6%) did not mention sample size estimation at
all. Of the 133 articles that did mention sample size estima-
tion, only 22 (9.9%) included all required components and 35
(41.7%) had estimated sample size values that were incorrect.
A serious challenge for researchers is how to choose sam-
pling strategies for hard-to-reach or hidden populations (e.g.,
drug users, persons who engage in high-risk sexual behav-
iors, or persons who are homeless; Firchow & Mac Ginty,
2020; Magnani et al., 2005). For these populations, probabil-
ity sampling methods cannot be used because members of
the population are unknown and there is no sampling frame.
Another difficulty is that hard-to-reach or hidden popula-
tions represent a relatively small proportion of the general
population, thus, statistical interpretations are often unreli-
able due to small samples and frequent sampling errors. Yet
another difficulty is that persons who are members of hard-
to-reach or hidden populations are often reluctant to partici-
pate in research due to concerns about being stigmatized or
fear of negative consequences.
Over the last 20–30 years, the most common sampling strat-
egy for these populations has been snowball sampling (Magnani
et al., 2005). While snowball sampling can be a useful non-
probability sampling strategy, its effectiveness is often based in
the selection of the initial participants and the degree to which
226 Journal of Human Lactation 36(2)

Table 3. Definitions of Non-Probability Sampling Methods with Associated Pros and Cons.

Non-Probability Sampling Methods

Sampling Method Pros Cons

Quota sampling: Based on identifying strata
with shared or unique characteristics
of the population and selecting persons
proportionate to the population.
Purposive sampling: Uses sampling
techniques that rely on the researcher’s
judgment for selecting persons. These
techniques include maximum variation
sampling, expert sampling, and typical case
sampling.
Self-selection sampling: Researchers specify
required inclusion/exclusion criteria and
persons from the population choose to
participate based on free will.
Snowball sampling: Strategy in which existing
participants recruit future participants
from others they know. Strategy is often
used for hard-to-recruit populations.
Quota sampling is quicker and easier
to conduct than stratified sampling
because random sampling is not
used. Quota sampling makes it easier
to explore distinctions in subgroups.
Purposive sampling can help
researchers justify selections based
on analytical, logical, or theoretical
grounds. Purposive sampling can be
useful in qualitative research that has
multiple phases and/or aims.
Self-selection can be time-saving.
Moreover, persons who choose
to participate are likely to be
committed to the research and likely
to provide more truthful responses.
Very useful strategy when persons in
population are difficult to identify
and hard-to-recruit.
As random sampling is not used, sampling
error cannot be calculated. Further,
sampling bias is a possibility. Finally, it can
be difficult to draw conclusions about the
population.
Purposive sampling can be prone to
researcher bias, particularly if rules or
criteria for judgment are poorly documented
or explained. In addition, purposive
sampling can make it difficult to defend the
representativeness of the population.
Self-selection sampling is often linked to
selection bias. Selection bias can lead to a
non-representative sample or exaggerated
and/or misleading findings.
As random selection is not used, sampling
error cannot be calculated and degree of
confidence in interpretation cannot be
determined.

Note. Table developed based on review from Elfil &Negida (2017), Shorten & Moorley (2014), Tyrer & Heyman (2016), and van Hoeven et al. (2015).

those participants are theoretically random. In recent years, References

there has been a proliferation of new sampling strategies to
reach hidden populations with varied success. Firchow and
MacGinty (2020) reported great success reaching individuals
in conflict-affected societies in low-income countries in Africa
with mobile phone surveys and text message surveys. In
another recent study, Peven et al. (2019) compared women’s
perceptions of breastfeeding support and practices across 11
low-income countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and the
Caribbean in a secondary analysis from 11 different Department
of Health Surveys (DHS) conducted during 2015. Comparisons
were made by selecting questions about breastfeeding support
and practices that were used in all DHS surveys, which resulted
in an overall sample of 87, 328 women. Logistic regressions
were performed to examine the potential contribution of approx-
imately 27 predictors to three different models of breastfeeding.
While the researchers’ interpretations of the findings suggested
some differences by country, it was noted that distinctions in
cultural variation and health care policies could not be ade-
quately addressed in the sampling approach.
Conclusion
A basic knowledge of sampling methods is essential to
designing quality research. The current article presented
probability and non-probability sampling methods, listed
and described common types, and presented pros and cons
related to their use. Specialized uses for sampling strategies
remain complex and should be studied further to identify
optimal strategies that will lead to better understanding of
unique and complex populations.
Elfil, M., & Negida, A. (2017). Sampling methods in clinical
research: An educational review. Emergency, 5 (1), Article e52,
1–3.
Firchow, P., & MacGinty, R. (2020). Including hard-to-access pop-
ulations using mobile phone surveys and participatory indica-
tors. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 133–160.
Magnani, R., Sabin, K., Saidel, T., & Heckathorn, D. (2005).
Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for
HIV surveillance. AIDS, 19 (Suppl. 2), S67–S72.
Omair, A. (2014). Sample size estimation and sampling tech-
niques for selecting a representative sample. Journal of Health
Specialties, 2(4), 142–147.
Peven, K., Purssell, E., Taylor, C., Bick, D., & Lopez, V. K. (2019).
Breastfeeding support in low and middle-income countries:
Secondary analysis of national survey data, Midwifery, 82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.102601
Shorten, A., & Moorley, C. (2014). Selecting the sample. Evidence
Based Nursing, 17(2), 32–33.
Tam, W., Lo, K., & Woo, B. (2020). Reporting sample size cal-
culations for randomized controlled trials published in nurs-
ing journals: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019
.103450
Tyrer, S., & Heyman, B. (2016). Sampling in epidemiologi-
cal research: Issues, hazards and pitfalls. British Journal of
Psychiatry Bulletin, 40, 57–60. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.114.050203
van Hoeven, L. R., Janssen, M. P., Roes, K. C. B., & Koffijberg, H.
(2015). Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random
versus purposive strategies for hospital selection. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 15 (90). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12874-015-0089-8