Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Lestina, D. C., Greene, M., Voas, R. B., & Wells, J. (2016). Sampling procedures and survey methodologies for the 1996 survey with comparisons to earlier National Roadside Surveys. Evaluation Review, 23(1), 28-46.

Abstract: This article describes the multistage sampling system employed in the 1996 national roadside survey and compares it to the sampling methods employed in the two prior surveys in 1973 and 1986. Also described are the data collection procedures at the selected sites, the breath-test devices used to collect blood alcohol concentration (BAC) data, and the methods used to impute BAC values where breath-test measures were not obtained. Overall, almost twice as many (6,298 in 1996 compared to 3,698 in 1973 and 3,043 in 1986) drivers were interviewed in the most recent national survey as in the previous efforts. The procedures implemented in the three surveys are sufficiently similar to permit comparison of these surveys conducted at 10-year intervals.

Journal Article 2: Lennon, S. J., Burnes, L. D., & Rowold, K. L. (2016). Dress¹ and human behavior research: Sampling, subjects, and consequences for statistics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(4), 262-272.

Abstract: Articles from the Home Economics Research Journal (Vol. 1–19) and the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal (Vol. 1–9) reporting dress research that involved the use of human subjects were content-analyzed. We were interested in the way probability and nonprobability sampling techniques were used, how they were combined with research designs, and their consequences for generalizability and statistics. Approximately 89% of the research used nonprobability sampling procedures, both in survey and experimental research designs. The consequences of the use of nonprobability sampling is discussed and suggestions are offered for increasing generalizability when nonprobability sampling is used in research.

Journal Article 3: Sink, C. A., & Mvududu, N. H. (2010). Statistical power, sampling, and effect sizes counseling outcome. Research and Evaluation, 1(2), 1-18.

Abstract: This article discusses the interrelated issues of statistical power, sampling, and effect sizes when conducting rigorous quantitative research. Technical and practical connections are made between these concepts and various inferential tests. To increase power and generate effect sizes that merit practical or clinical notice, not only must the research aims and associated design be well devised, reflecting best scientific practice, state of the art sampling procedures should be applied with sufficiently large and representative number of participants. Applications to research conducted in the counseling profession are included.

Journal Article 4: Otterbein, K. F. (2016). Sampling and samples in cross-cultural studies. Cross-Cultural Research, 11(2), 107-121.

Abstract: The various samples and sampling universes available to the researcher about to undertake a cross-cultural study are systematically reviewed. Discussed are the Human Relations Area Files, the “World Ethnographic Sample,” the Ethnographic Atlas (both the complete atlas as well as the summary version), the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, the Quality Control Sample (or HRAF Probability Sample), and the “Standard Ethnographic Sample.” Following an assessment of each sample, recommendations are made as to the conditions and circumstances under which the samples should be utilized. The discussion concludes with recommendations for drawing a sample from one of the samples or sampling universes.