Laboratory Tests of Sampling Techniques.
This article points out certain limitations to quota sampling and area sampling in opinion polling. Each of the two general types of sampling techniques used in large-scale surveys, briefly referred to as quota methods and area methods, has adherents who claim superiority for it over the other. Area...
| Publicado en: | Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 11; no. 4; pp. 586 - 594 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Winter47/48
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=11922731&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 11922731 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0033362X POQ jtl: Public Opinion Quarterly issn: 0033362X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Winter47/48 vid: 11 iid: 4 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 11922731 10.1086/265894 ppf: 586 ppct: 8 formats: tig: atl: Laboratory Tests of Sampling Techniques. aug: au: Meier, Norman C. Burke, Cletus J. su: Public opinion polls Sampling (Process) Surveys Interviewing Statistical sampling Income sug: subj: Public opinion polls Sampling (Process) Surveys Interviewing Statistical sampling Income ab: This article points out certain limitations to quota sampling and area sampling in opinion polling. Each of the two general types of sampling techniques used in large-scale surveys, briefly referred to as quota methods and area methods, has adherents who claim superiority for it over the other. Area methods require that interviews be made only in specified, circumscribed areas and that within these areas every pertinent individual, or a strictly random subsampling of such individuals, be interviewed. The quota method comes out better on the point for point comparison. The results on home-ownership indicate the possibility of unwitting bias in the quota samples. On income alone, the quota method is better than simple random sampling. There is some evidence that neither method is as efficient as simple random sampling for the composite results on all three variables. This study shows that, in all probability, the differences between the results obtained by the two methods are not so great that a clear-cut superiority for one or the other can be easily demonstrated. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y dt: @attributes: year: 1947 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|