RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

12.01.2015 Views

THE SAMPLE SIZE 105 rapidly generate the need for a very large sample. If subgroups are required then the same rules for calculating overall sample size apply to each of the subgroups. Further, determining the size of the sample will also have to take account of non-response, attrition and respondent mortality, i.e. some participants will fail to return questionnaires, leave the research, return incomplete or spoiled questionnaires (e.g. missing out items, putting two ticks in a row of choices instead of only one). Hence it is advisable to overestimate rather than to underestimate the size of the sample required, to build in redundancy (Gorard 2003: 60). Unless one has guarantees of access, response and, perhaps, the researcher’s own presence at the time of conducting the research (e.g. presence when questionnaires are being completed), then it might be advisable to estimate up to double the size of required sample in order to allow for such loss of clean and complete copies of questionnaires or responses. In some circumstances, meeting the requirements of sample size can be done on an evolutionary basis. For example, let us imagine that you wish to sample 300 teachers, randomly selected. You succeed in gaining positive responses from 250 teachers to, for example, a telephone survey or a questionnaire survey, but you are 50 short of the required number. The matter can be resolved simply by adding another 50 to the random sample, and, if not all of these are successful, then adding some more until the required number is reached. Borg and Gall (1979: 195) suggest that, as a general rule, sample sizes should be large where there are many variables only small differences or small relationships are expected or predicted the sample will be broken down into subgroups the sample is heterogeneous in terms of the variables under study reliable measures of the dependent variable are unavailable. Oppenheim (1992: 44) adds to this the view that the nature of the scales to be used also exerts an influence on the sample size. For nominal data the sample sizes may well have to be larger than for interval and ratio data (i.e. a variant of the issue of the number of subgroups to be addressed, the greater the number of subgroups or possible categories, the larger the sample will have to be). Borg and Gall (1979) set out a formuladriven approach to determining sample size (see also Moser and Kalton 1977; Ross and Rust 1997: 427–38), and they also suggest using correlational tables for correlational studies – available in most texts on statistics – as it were ‘in reverse’ to determine sample size (Borg and Gall 1979: 201), i.e. looking at the significance levels of correlation coefficients and then reading off the sample sizes usually required to demonstrate that level of significance. For example, a correlational significance level of 0.01 would require a sample size of 10 if the estimated coefficient of correlation is 0.65, or a sample size of 20 if the estimated correlation coefficient is 0.45, and a sample size of 100 if the estimated correlation coefficient is 0.20. Again, an inverse proportion can be seen – the larger the sample population, the smaller the estimated correlation coefficient can be to be deemed significant. With both qualitative and quantitative data, the essential requirement is that the sample is representative of the population from which it is drawn. In a dissertation concerned with a life history (i.e. n = 1), the sample is the population! Qualitative data In a qualitative study of thirty highly able girls of similar socio-economic background following an A level Biology course, a sample of five or six may suffice the researcher who is prepared to obtain additional corroborative data by way of validation. Where there is heterogeneity in the population, then a larger sample must be selected on some basis that respects that heterogeneity. Thus, from a staff of sixty secondary school teachers differentiated by gender, age, subject specialism, management or classroom responsibility, etc., it Chapter 4

106 SAMPLING would be insufficient to construct a sample consisting of ten female classroom teachers of Arts and Humanities subjects. Quantitative data For quantitative data, a precise sample number can be calculated according to the level of accuracy and the level of probability that researchers require in their work. They can then report in their study the rationale and the basis of their research decisions (Blalock 1979). By way of example, suppose a teacher/researcher wishes to sample opinions among 1,000 secondary school students. She intends to use a 10-point scale ranging from 1 = totally unsatisfactory to 10 = absolutely fabulous. She already has data from her own class of thirty students and suspects that the responses of other students will be broadly similar. Her own students rated the activity (an extracurricular event) as follows: mean score = 7.27; standard deviation = 1.98. In other words, her students were pretty much ‘bunched’ about a warm, positive appraisal on the 10-point scale. How many of the 1,000 students does she need to sample in order to gain an accurate (i.e. reliable) assessment of what the whole school (n = 1, 000) thinks of the extracurricular event It all depends on what degree of accuracy and what level of probability she is willing to accept. AsimplecalculationfromaformulabyBlalock (1979: 215–18) shows that: if she is happy to be within + or − 0.5 of a scale point and accurate 19 times out of 20, then she requires a sample of 60 out of the 1,000; if she is happy to be within + or − 0.5 of a scale point and accurate 99 times out of 100, then she requires a sample of 104 out of the 1,000 if she is happy to be within + or − 0.5 of a scale point and accurate 999 times out of 1,000, then she requires a sample of 170 out of the 1,000 if she is a perfectionist and wishes to be within + or − 0.25 of a scale point and accurate 999 times out of 1,000, then she requires a sample of 679 out of the 1,000. It is clear that sample size is a matter of judgement as well as mathematical precision; even formula-driven approaches make it clear that there are elements of prediction, standard error and human judgement involved in determining sample size. Sampling error If many samples are taken from the same population, it is unlikely that they will all have characteristics identical with each other or with the population; their means will be different. In brief, there will be sampling error (see Cohen and Holliday 1979, 1996). Sampling error is often taken to be the difference between the sample mean and the population mean. Sampling error is not necessarily the result of mistakes made in sampling procedures. Rather, variations may occur due to the chance selection of different individuals. For example, if we take a large number of samples from the population and measure the mean value of each sample, then the sample means will not be identical. Some will be relatively high, some relatively low, and many will cluster around an average or mean value of the samples. We show this diagrammatically in Box 4.2 (see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/ 9780415368780 – Chapter 4, file 4.4.ppt). Why should this occur We can explain the phenomenon by reference to the Central Limit Theorem which is derived from the laws of probability. This states that if random large samples of equal size are repeatedly drawn from any population, then the mean of those samples will be approximately normally distributed. The distribution of sample means approaches the normal distribution as the size of the sample increases, regardless of the shape – normal or otherwise – of the parent population (Hopkins et al. 1996:159,388).Moreover,theaverageor mean of the sample means will be approximately the same as the population mean. Hopkins et al. (1996: 159–62) demonstrate this by reporting the use of computer simulation to examine the sampling distribution of means when computed 10,000 times (a method that we discuss in

106 SAMPLING<br />

would be insufficient to construct a sample consisting<br />

of ten female classroom teachers of Arts<br />

and Humanities subjects.<br />

Quantitative data<br />

For quantitative data, a precise sample number<br />

can be calculated according to the level of accuracy<br />

and the level of probability that researchers require<br />

in their work. They can then report in their<br />

study the rationale and the basis of their research<br />

decisions (Blalock 1979).<br />

By way of example, suppose a teacher/researcher<br />

wishes to sample opinions among 1,000 secondary<br />

school students. She intends to use a 10-point<br />

scale ranging from 1 = totally unsatisfactory to<br />

10 = absolutely fabulous. She already has data<br />

from her own class of thirty students and suspects<br />

that the responses of other students will be<br />

broadly similar. Her own students rated the<br />

activity (an extracurricular event) as follows: mean<br />

score = 7.27; standard deviation = 1.98. In other<br />

words, her students were pretty much ‘bunched’<br />

about a warm, positive appraisal on the 10-point<br />

scale. How many of the 1,000 students does she<br />

need to sample in order to gain an accurate (i.e.<br />

reliable) assessment of what the whole school<br />

(n = 1, 000) thinks of the extracurricular event<br />

It all depends on what degree of accuracy and what level<br />

of probability she is willing to accept.<br />

AsimplecalculationfromaformulabyBlalock<br />

(1979: 215–18) shows that:<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

if she is happy to be within + or − 0.5 of a scale<br />

point and accurate 19 times out of 20, then she<br />

requires a sample of 60 out of the 1,000;<br />

if she is happy to be within + or − 0.5 of a<br />

scale point and accurate 99 times out of 100,<br />

then she requires a sample of 104 out of the<br />

1,000<br />

if she is happy to be within + or − 0.5 of a scale<br />

point and accurate 999 times out of 1,000, then<br />

she requires a sample of 170 out of the 1,000<br />

if she is a perfectionist and wishes to be within<br />

+ or − 0.25 of a scale point and accurate 999<br />

times out of 1,000, then she requires a sample<br />

of 679 out of the 1,000.<br />

It is clear that sample size is a matter of<br />

judgement as well as mathematical precision; even<br />

formula-driven approaches make it clear that there<br />

are elements of prediction, standard error and<br />

human judgement involved in determining sample<br />

size.<br />

Sampling error<br />

If many samples are taken from the same<br />

population, it is unlikely that they will all have<br />

characteristics identical with each other or with<br />

the population; their means will be different. In<br />

brief, there will be sampling error (see Cohen<br />

and Holliday 1979, 1996). Sampling error is often<br />

taken to be the difference between the sample<br />

mean and the population mean. Sampling error<br />

is not necessarily the result of mistakes made<br />

in sampling procedures. Rather, variations may<br />

occur due to the chance selection of different<br />

individuals. For example, if we take a large<br />

number of samples from the population and<br />

measure the mean value of each sample, then<br />

the sample means will not be identical. Some<br />

will be relatively high, some relatively low, and<br />

many will cluster around an average or mean value<br />

of the samples. We show this diagrammatically in<br />

Box 4.2 (see http://www.routledge.com/textbo<strong>ok</strong>s/<br />

9780415368780 – Chapter 4, file 4.4.ppt).<br />

Why should this occur We can explain the<br />

phenomenon by reference to the Central Limit<br />

Theorem which is derived from the laws of<br />

probability. This states that if random large<br />

samples of equal size are repeatedly drawn from<br />

any population, then the mean of those samples<br />

will be approximately normally distributed. The<br />

distribution of sample means approaches the<br />

normal distribution as the size of the sample<br />

increases, regardless of the shape – normal or<br />

otherwise – of the parent population (Hopkins<br />

et al. 1996:159,388).Moreover,theaverageor<br />

mean of the sample means will be approximately<br />

the same as the population mean. Hopkins et al.<br />

(1996: 159–62) demonstrate this by reporting<br />

the use of computer simulation to examine the<br />

sampling distribution of means when computed<br />

10,000 times (a method that we discuss in

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!