SAMPLING

Sampling methods are the ways to choose people from the population to be considered in a
sample survey. Samples can be divided based on following criteria.
 Probability samples - In such samples, each population element has a known
probability or chance of being chosen for the sample.
 Non-probability samples - In such samples, one can not be assured of having known
probabiility of each population element.

Probability sampling methods

Probability sampling methods ensures that the sample chosen represent the population correctly
and the survey conducted will be statistically valid. Following are the types of probability
sampling methods:
 Simple random sampling. - This method refers to a method having following
properties:
o The population have N objects.
o The sample have n objects.
o All possible samples of n objects have equal probability of occurence.
One example of simple random sampling is lottery method. Assign each population
element a unique number and place the numbers in [Link] the numbers throughly. A
blind-folded researcher is to select n numbers. Include those population element in the
sample whose number has been selected.
 Stratified sampling - In this type of sampling method, population is divided into groups
called strata based on certain common characteristic like geography. Then samples are
selected from each group using simple random sampling method and then survey is
conducted on people of those samples.
 Cluster sampling - In this type of sampling method, each population member is
assigned to a unique group called cluster. A sample cluster is selected using simple
random sampling method and then survey is conducted on people of that sample cluster.
 Multistage sampling - In such case, combination of different sampling methods at
different stages. For example, at first stage, cluster sampling can be used to choose
clusters from population and then sample random sampling can be used to choose
elements from each cluster for the final sample.
  Systematic random sampling - In this type of sampling method, a list of every member
of population is created and then first sample element is randomly selected from first k
elements. Thereafter, every kth element is selected from the list.
Non-probability sampling methods

Non-probability sampling methods are convenient and cost-savvy. But they do not allow to
estimate the extent to which sample statistics are likely to vary from population parameters.
Whereas probability sampling methods allows that kind of analysis. Following are the types of
non-probability sampling methods:
 Voluntary sample - In such sampling methods, interested people are asked to get
involved in a voluntary survey. A good example of voluntary sample in on-line poll of a
news show where viewers are asked to participate. In voluntary sample, viewers choose
the sample, not the one who conducts survey.
 Convenience sample - In such sampling methods, surveyor picks people who are easily
available to give their inputs. For example, a surveyer chooses a cinema hall to survey
movie viewers. If the cinema hall was selected on the basis that it was easier to reach
then it is a convenience sampling method.
Medical research sets out to form conclusions applicable to populations with data obtained from
randomized samples drawn from those populations. Larger sample sizes should lead to more
reliable conclusions. Sample size and power considerations should therefore be part of the
routine planning and interpretation of all clinical research

Power
The power of any test of statistical significance is defined as the probability that it will reject a
false null hypothesis. Statistical power is inversely related to beta or the probability of making
a Type II error. In short, power = 1 – β.

In plain English, statistical power is the likelihood that a study will detect an effect when there is
an effect there to be detected. If statistical power is high, the probability of making a Type II
error, or concluding there is no effect when, in fact, there is one, goes down.

Statistical power is affected chiefly by the size of the effect and the size of the sample used to
detect it. Bigger effects are easier to detect than smaller effects, while large samples offer greater
test sensitivity than small samples.

There is nothing cast in stone regarding the appropriate level of statistical power, but Cohen
(1988) reasoned that studies should be designed in such a way that they have an 80% probability
of detecting an effect when there is an effect there to be detected. To put it another way, studies
should have no more than a 20% probability of making a Type II error (recall that power = 1
– β).

How did Cohen come up with 80%? In his mind this figure represented a reasonable balance
between alpha and beta risk. Cohen reasoned that most researchers would view Type I errors as
being four times more serious than Type II errors and therefore deserving of more stringent
safeguards. Thus, if alpha significance levels are set at .05, then beta levels should be set at .20
and power (which = 1 – β) should be .80.

Cohen’s four-to-one weighting of beta-to-alpha risk serves as a good default that will be
reasonable in many settings. But the ideal level of power in any given test situation will depend
on the circumstances.

For instance, if past research tells you that there is virtually no chance of committing a Type I
error (because there really is an effect there to be detected), then it may be irrational to adopt a
stringent level of alpha at the expense of beta. A more rational approach would be to balance the
error rates or even swing them in favor of protecting us against making the only type of error that
can be made.

For any statistical test, the probability of making a Type I error is denoted by the Greek
letter alpha (α), and the probability of making a Type IIerror is denoted by Greek letter beta (β).

Alpha (or beta) can range from 0 to 1 where 0 means there is no chance of making a Type I (or
Type II) error and 1 means it is unavoidable.

Following Fisher, the critical level of alpha for determining whether a result can be judged
statistically significant is conventionally set at .05. Where this standard is adopted the likelihood
of a making Type I error – or concluding there is an effect when there is none – cannot exceed
5%.

For the past 80 years, alpha has received all the attention. But few researchers seem to realize
that alpha and beta levels are related, that as one goes up, the other must go down. While alpha
safeguards us against making Type I errors, it does nothing to protect us from making Type II
errors. A well thought out research design is one that assesses the relative risk of making each
type of error then strikes an appropriate balance between them
The Definition of Sample Size
Sample size measures the number of individual samples measured or observations used in a
survey or experiment. For example, if you test 100 samples of soil for evidence of acid rain, your
sample size is 100. If an online survey returned 30,500 completed questionnaires, your sample
size is 30,500. In statistics, sample size is generally represented by the variable "n".
Calculation of Sample Size
To determine the sample size needed for an experiment or survey, researchers take a number of
desired factors into account. First, the total size of the population being studied must be
considered
Design of experiments
Data for statistical studies are obtained by conducting either experiments or surveys.
Experimental design is the branch of statistics that deals with the design and analysis of
experiments. The methods of experimental design are widely used in the fields of
agriculture, medicine, biology, marketing research, and industrial production.

The term experimental design refers to a plan for assigning experimental units
to treatmentconditions.

A good experimental design serves three purposes.

 Causation. It allows the experimenter to make causal inferences about the relationship
betweenindependent variables and a dependent variable.
 Control. It allows the experimenter to rule out alternative explanations due to
the confoundingeffects of extraneous variables (i.e., variables other than the independent
variables).
 Variability. It reduces variability within treatment conditions, which makes it easier to
detect differences in treatment outcomes.

In an experimental study, variables of interest are identified. One or more of these variables,
referred to as the factors of the study, are controlled so that data may be obtained about how the
factors influence another variable referred to as the response variable, or simply the response. As
a case in point, consider an experiment designed to determine the effect of three different
exercise programs on the cholesterol level of patients with elevated cholesterol. Each patient is
referred to as an experimental unit, the response variable is the cholesterol level of the patient at
the completion of the program, and the exercise program is the factor whose effect on cholesterol
level is being investigated. Each of the three exercise programs is referred to as a treatment.
Three of the more widely used experimental designs are the completely randomized design, the
randomized block design, and the factorial design. In a completely randomized experimental
design, the treatments are randomly assigned to the experimental units. For instance, applying
this design method to the cholesterol-level study, the three types of exercise program (treatment)
would be randomly assigned to the experimental units (patients).
The use of a completely randomized design will yield less precise results when factors not
accounted for by the experimenter affect the response variable. Consider, for example, an
experiment designed to study the effect of two different gasoline additives on the fuel efficiency,
measured in miles per gallon (mpg), of full-size automobiles produced by three manufacturers.
Suppose that 30 automobiles, 10 from each manufacturer, were available for the experiment. In a
completely randomized design the two gasoline additives (treatments) would be randomly
assigned to the 30 automobiles, with each additive being assigned to 15 different cars. Suppose
that manufacturer 1 has developed an engine that gives its full-size cars a higher fuel efficiency
than those produced by manufacturers 2 and 3. A completely randomized design could,
by chance, assign gasoline additive 1 to a larger proportion of cars from manufacturer 1. In such
a case, gasoline additive 1 might be judged to be more fuel efficient when in fact the difference
observed is actually due to the better engine design of automobiles produced by manufacturer 1.
To prevent this from occurring, a statistician could design an experiment in which both gasoline
additives are tested using five cars produced by each manufacturer; in this way, any effects due
to the manufacturer would not affect the test for significant differences due to gasoline additive.
In this revised experiment, each of the manufacturers is referred to as a block, and the
experiment is called a randomized block design. In general, blocking is used in order to enable
comparisons among the treatments to be made within blocks of homogeneous experimental
units.
Factorial experiments are designed to draw conclusions about more than one factor, or variable.
The term factorial is used to indicate that all possible combinations of the factors are considered.
For instance, if there are two factors with a levels for factor 1 and b levels for factor 2, the
experiment will involve collecting data on ab treatment combinations. The factorial design can
be extended to experiments involving more than two factors and experiments involving partial
factorial designs.

An Experimental Design Example

Consider the following hypothetical experiment. Acme Medicine is conducting an experiment to

test a new vaccine, developed to immunize people against the common cold. To test the vaccine,
Acme has 1000 volunteers - 500 men and 500 women. The participants range in age from 21 to
70.

In this lesson, we describe three experimental designs - a completely randomized design, a

randomized block design, and a matched pairs design. And we show how each design might be
applied by Acme Medicine to understand the effect of the vaccine, while ruling out confounding
effects of other factors.

Completely Randomized Design

The completely randomized design is probably the simplest experimental design, in terms of
data analysis and convenience. With this design, participants are randomly assigned to
treatments. A completely randomized design for the Acme Experiment is shown in the table
below.
Treatment
Placebo Vaccine
500 500

In this design, the experimenter randomly assigned participants to one of two treatment
conditions. They received a placebo or they received the vaccine. The same number of
participants (500) were assigned to each treatment condition (although this is not required). The
dependent variable is the number of colds reported in each treatment condition. If the vaccine is
effective, participants in the "vaccine" condition should report significantly fewer colds than
participants in the "placebo" condition.

A completely randomized design relies on randomization to control for the effects of lurking
variablesvariables. Lurking variables are potential causal variables that were not included
explicitly in the study. By randomly assigning subjects to treatments, the experimenter assumes
that, on averge, lurking variables will affect each treatment condition equally; so any significant
differences between conditions can fairly be attributed to the independent variable.

Randomized Block Design

With a randomized block design, the experimenter divides participants into subgroups
called blocks, such that the variability within blocks is less than the variability between blocks.
Then, participants within each block are randomly assigned to treatment conditions. Because this
design reduces variability and potential confounding, it produces a better estimate of treatment
effects. The table below shows a randomized block design for the Acme experiment.
Treatment
Gender Placebo Vaccine
Male 250 250
Female 250 250

Participants are assigned to blocks, based on gender. Then, within each block, participants are
randomly assigned to treatments. For this design, 250 men get the placebo, 250 men get the
vaccine, 250 women get the placebo, and 250 women get the vaccine.

It is known that men and women are physiologically different and react differently to
medication. This design ensures that each treatment condition has an equal proportion of men
and women. As a result, differences between treatment conditions cannot be attributed to gender.
This randomized block design removes gender as a potential source of variability and as a
potential confounding variable.

In this Acme example, the randomized block design is an improvement over the completely
randomized design. Both designs use randomization to implicitly guard against confounding. But
only the randomized block design explicitly controls for gender.
Note 1: In some blocking designs, individual participants may receive multiple treatments. This
is called using the participant as his own control. Using the participant as his own control is
desirable in some experiments (e.g., research on learning or fatigue). But it can also be a problem
(e.g., medical studies where the medicine used in one treatment might interact with the medicine
used in another treatment).

Note 2: Blocks perform a similar function in experimental design as strata perform in sampling.
Both divide observations into subgroups. However, they are not the same. Blocking is associated
with experimental design, and stratification is associated with survey sampling.

Matched Pairs Design

A matched pairs design is a special case of the randomized block design. It is used when the
experiment has only two treatment conditions; and participants can be grouped into pairs, based
on one or more blocking variables. Then, within each pair, participants are randomly assigned to
different treatments. The table below shows a matched pairs design for the Acme experiment.
Treatment
Pair Placebo Vaccine
1 1 1
2 1 1
... ... ...
499 1 1
500 1 1

The 1000 participants are grouped into 500 matched pairs. Each pair is matched on gender and
age. For example, Pair 1 might be two women, both age 21. Pair 2 might be two women, both
age 22, and so on. This design provides explicit control for two potential lurking variables - age
and gender. (And randomization controls for effects of lurking variables that were not included
explicitly in the design.)

Latin Square Design

An experiment design that can be used to control the random variation of two factors. The design
is arranged with an equal number of rows and columns, so that all combinations of possible
values for the two variables can be tested multiple times. This design is used to reduce the effect
of random or nuisance factors.
These Designs are probably not used as much as they should be - they are very efficient designs.
Latin square designs allow for two blocking factors. In other words, these designs are used to
simultaneously control (or eliminate) two sources of nuisance variability. For instance, if you
had a plot of land the fertility of this land might change in both directions, North -- South and
East -- West due to soil or moisture gradients. So, both rows and columns can be used as
blocking factors. However, you can use Latin squares in lots of other settings. As we shall see,
Latin squares can be used as much as the RCBD in industrial experimentation as well as other
experiments.
Whenever, you have more than one blocking factor a Latin square design will allow you to
remove the variation for these two sources from the error variation. So, consider we had a plot of
land, we might have blocked it in columns and rows, i.e. each row is a level of the row factor,
and each column is a level of the column factor. We can remove the variation from our measured
response in both directions if we consider both rows and columns as factors in our design.
The Latin Square Design gets its name from the fact that we can write it as a square with Latin
letters to correspond to the treatments. The treatment factor levels are the Latin letters in the
Latin square design. The number of rows and columns has to correspond to the number of
treatment levels. So, if we have four treatments then we would need to have four rows and four
columns in order to create a Latin square. This gives us a design where we have each of the
treatments and in each row and in each column.

Problem
Which of the following statements are true?
I. A completely randomized design offers no control for lurking variables.
II. A randomized block design controls for the placebo effect.
III. In a matched pairs design, participants within each pair receive the same treatment.

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.

Solution

The correct answer is (E). In a completely randomized design, experimental units are randomly
assigned to treatment conditions. Randomization provides some control for lurking variables. By
itself, arandomized block design does not control for the placebo effect. To control for the
placebo effect, the experimenter must include a placebo in one of the treatment levels. In
a matched pairs design, experimental units within each pair are assigned to different treatment
levels.