Critical Analysis of sampling method

Critical appraisal is the process of evaluating the trustworthiness and validity of any selected research paper by using the supportive as well as relevant pieces of evidence. This study is going to present the critical appraisal of the sampling methods of the two given articles. Here the study will use Moule (2018) critical appraisal framework to critically analyse the sampling methods that are used in these two articles and the relevance of these methods to the research objectives. The study will also critically analyse whether the reason for selecting the sampling strategy for each research study is clearly mentioned in the articles. Here the study will evaluate the validity, authenticity and trustworthiness of the sampling methods that are presented in the two selected articles. Finally, the study will draw a suitable conclusion in which the main aspects of the discussion will be summarised. One of the two selected articles is “"Delayed Sequelae Related to Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children" written by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020). This paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) aims to highlight the long-term impacts of the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) on children of 1-14 years in the UK. This paper presents the telephonic survey that has been carried out by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) to analyse the delayed sequelae of TBI on the children of 1-14 years age who experience the TBI in any of the life stages. This telephonic survey has been conducted by selecting 100 children (34 girls and 64 boys) who suffer from TBI to collect the valuable response each chid regarding how the long-term impacts of TBI poses adverse impacts on the health and wellbeing of these children. In another article “Confidence and willingness among laypersons in the UK to act in a head injury situation: a qualitative focus group study”, Kulnik et al. (2019) discuss the factors that potentially influence the willingness and the confidence level of the layperson in the UK to manage a head injury situation in relation to provide them with the proper first aid education by the British Red Cross. This paper presents the objectives to analyse whether the first aid education to the laypersons in the UK can improve their confidence level and willingness in carrying out the effective management of head injury situation. This paper mentions that a semi-structured interview has been conducted for the selected 44 participants (7 men and 37 women). Here Kulnik et al. (2019) have formed six population groups of the participants that include informal care staffs of the older children, parents of the young child, sport coaches, school staffs, others adults and young adults. Through asking the open-ended questions to the participants of these six focus groups, Kulnik et al. (2019) have collected participants’ response regarding their experiences, perspectives and opinion on usefulness of the first aid education to the in terms of enhancing and willingness to head injury situation. According to Butler et al. (2018), while to perform a critical analysis of any research paper the selection of a trustworthy and effective critical appraisal framework is crucial. This essay has selected the Moule (2018) critical appraisal framework to make the critical analysis of two given research papers. Moule (2018) framework is highly useful, relevant and trustworthy critical appraisal tool that assists the researchers to analyse each element of a research paper by comparing its validity, trustworthiness and authenticity. Moule (2018) mentioned a list of the criteria for each research element that assist this essay to check whether the given research paper is able to meet each criterion for each of the research element thereby analysing the authenticity and validity of that research element. In this context the selection of the Moule (2018) as the critical appraisal tool is highly appropriate that assist this essay to check the validity as well as authenticity of each element of a research paper by comparing it with the other relevant literature. While critically analysing the sampling method of a research paper researchers need to follow the systematic process to check whether the research study meets all the criteria of a good sampling method as per the selected critical appraisal tool (Gentles and Vilches, 2017). Moule (2018) mentioned that while critically analysing the sampling method the first thing that the researcher needs to analyse is the appropriateness of the selected sampling strategy. The research paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) clearly mention that purposive sampling has been conducted to select the participants. As stated by Hoeber et al. (2017), purposive sampling is the type of non-random sampling process in which participants are selected based on the objectives of the research study. Although Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) do not mention any clear rationale in their research paper regarding choosing the purposive sampling techniques, it is clear from the discussion that this sampling is useful for their research study to select such participants who can better represent the entire target population. Purposive sampling assists Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) to select the children from the entire population pool who meet the recruitment criteria thereby repressing the perspectives, opinion and viewpoint of the entire society regarding the impacts of delayed sequalae of TBI on children. On this positive note, the selection of the purposive sampling is highly relevant that ensure the validity and authenticity of the sampling method used in this study. In the research paper by Kulnik et al. (2019), researcher have used the purposive sampling to select participants from the target population. This research paper also fails to give proper justification or rationale behind choosing this purposive sampling process which can pose questions on the appropriateness of the sampling method in meeting the study objectives. However, through analysing the entire discussion on the sampling process the research paper, it is clear that purposive sampling is the best-suited sampling methods for this study to select the relevant participants that can act as the representatives (laypersons in the UK) of the entire target population. Purposively from the six focus groups researchers are able to analyse the perspectives and opinion of the entire target population (laypersons in the UK). As mentioned by Gentles and Vilches (2017), while using any sampling techniques a good research paper must ensure that this sampling strategy is useful in selecting such participants that can assist researcher to meet the entire research objectives. Through selecting the laypersons purposively, Kulnik et al. (2019), are able to evaluate that what the laypersons residing in the South England think about the usefulness of the first aid education regarding improving the confidence to manage the head injury. On this positive note it can be stated that the selection of the purposive sampling techniques is highly appropriate to the aim and objective of the research study. While critically analysing any sampling techniques researchers must analyse whether the article mentions any bias that is identified during the sampling process (Sharma, 2017). The author also stated that a good research article must mention that whether the sampling proves is carried out by the researchers by maintaining a bias-free environment. Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) present in their research paper that any kind of bias is not identified in the research study. In the research paper Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) ensure that all the participants are treated equally and fairly throughout their selection and sampling process to avoid any kind of bias. As mentioned by Hoeber et al. (2017), bias can be considered as the favour of some of the sampling units over the other which interfere with the validity and ethics of ten sampling techniques as well as of the entire research study. Here in the research paper, the parents of the children suffering from TBI are selected irrespective of their caste, race, religion and ethnicity which shows that researchers have mentioned a bias-free process of sampling (Chendrasekhar et al. 2020). On this positive note, it can be stated that no bias has been identified in the research paper which enhances the quality and validity of the sampling process. On the other hand, the paper by Kulnik et al. (2019), do not discuss about whether the participants have experienced any kind of bias or favourism regarding their selection for this study. As mentioned by Butler et al. (2018), transparency in the sample selection is one of the most important aspects of the sampling process, in which researchers assure that the sample is free from any kind of bias. As mentioned by Schreier (2018), the accurate sampling process is something, in which the sample is selection is not affected by the caste, ethnicity, religion, culture and racial features of participants. The author also stated that the accuracy of any sampling process is based on how perfectly the sampling units meet all the research criteria. As mentioned by Farrugia (2019), the accurate sample is something that can perfectly meet all the inclusion criteria set by the researchers. In this context, Kulnik et al. (2019), fail to mention whether the selection process is free from any kind of bias or discrimination and whether all the participants are equally treated and respected by the researchers throughout the study. On the other hand, although the size, background and ethnicity are described in this research paper, there is no discussion regarding the bias and ethics of selecting the sampling units. On this note, the questions can be raised on the authenticity of the accuracy of the selected sampling units. According to Moule (2018), the next thing that needs to be considered while critically analysing any sampling technique is the target population. As mentioned by Conlon et al. (2020), the target population are considered as the entire group of people that are targeted by the researchers in terms of collecting useful data and inferring a proper conclusion. Although the quantitative research paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) fails to give a discussion regarding on the target population, through analysing the sampling method it is clear that researchers target the parents of the children who suffer from TBI at some stages of their life. As mentioned by Schreier (2018), a good research paper must mention the target population of the research study. The authors also stated that researchers must ensure that the target population which are selected for the study must be relevant to the research objectives and the context of the study. Here in the given quantitative research paper, the research stud is based on the aim to document and analyse the delayed sequelae from the mild traumatic brain injury in children. Therefore, the selection of parents of children who suffers from TBI at any stage from 4 to 68 months as the target population is highly justified and relevant to the research objectives. On the other hand, in the paper written by Kulnik et al. (2019), it is clearly mentioned that target population for the study includes the laypersons who reside in the South East England. In addition to this Kulnik et al. 2019) also mention the clear description of the characteristics, ethnicity, medical history and background of the population which provide the transparency in understanding the rationale behind selecting this target population for this study. The further analysis of the target population in this research paper shows that the laypersons are selected from the six focus groups to ensure that the selected population will meet all the pre-set criteria of recruitment. On this positive note it can be stated that Kulnik et al. 2019) are able to select a valid and appropriate target population that assist this research study to meet its objective. A good research paper must have a clear description of the selection and recruitment of the sample population (Conlon et al. 2020). Recruitment is the process in which the appropriate sample population are selected based on the pre-set inclusion criteria. As stated by Gentles and Vilches (2017), researchers must ensure that the inclusion criteria that are developed to select the participants ae highly relevant to the research topic and research objectives. While selecting the sample population, research must ensure that each participant meets all the inclusion criteria. Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) fail to present a clear discussion on the requirement and selection process of the participants which pose a big question on the validity and authenticity of a research article. On the other hand, the research paper also does not mention the process in which the participants are invited to the study. According to Schreier (2018), a good research paper is that which presents the detail discussion on the selection process which describes how the participant is invited for the research. On this note, as the research article fails to discuss the invitation process, it can be considered as the potential drawback of the sampling process. On the other hand, Kulnik et al. (2019) give a clear description of the process of recruitment of the participants. This research paper clearly mentioned that, researchers approach the lead contacts to get all the information regarding the candidate details and select them based on the criteria. Here the lead contacts are the health visitors of the children care centre, the cycling coach, the sheltered housing garden and the university lecturers. Lead contacts provide the participants with the consent form and the information sheet of the research study. Moreover, Kulnik et al. (2019) also mention the criteria based on which the laypersons in the UK are selected for this study. On this note, it can be stated that the clear description of the recruitment process enhances the validity and authenticity the research paper Informed consent is one of the most important aspects of the selection process that ensure the voluntary participation of each participant. A good sampling process must have a detailed description of how informed consent is collected from the participants (Conlon et al. 2020). Chendrasekhar et al. (2020)) although mention it clearly that the informed consent taken from the ethical community for the collection, publication and analysis of the data, they fail to present any discussion regarding whether the informed consent taken from the participants. The lack of discussion on informed consent and the voluntary participation of the participants interfere with the validity and authenticity of the sampling process. As mentioned by Farrugia (2019), informed consent is important for a good sampling process, in which researchers informed the participants regarding the objectives as well as the aims of the research study, through this process, participants are informed about the process of carrying out the research study, the sampling techniques, the data collection process and the associated risks of the research study. Therefore, informed consent is vital ethical aspects of a sampling method, which ensure that participant is aware of the objectives, aims and the process of the research study and the voluntarily take part in the data collection process. On the others hand, Kulnik et al. (2019) have successfully mention that the written inform consent was taken from each of the selected participants to ensure their voluntary participation in the study. Additionally, researchers also mention that each participant is informed about the purpose, objectives and process of the research study through providing them with the information sheet along with the consent form. On this positive note Kulnik et al. (2019) are able to maintain the validity and trustworthiness of the sampling method in relation to take proper informed consent from each participant. While discussing a sampling proves, a research article must mention whether there are any vulnerable people in the selected sample (Butler et al. 2018.). If there are a vulnerable group of people in the selected participants, then researchers have to provide proper safeguarding and protection environment to the people in term of protecting them any kind of abuse and harm. As mentioned by Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2017), a good research paper must discussion that whether the research study has included any vulnerable group of people, especially while the study is conducted on any participants’ health condition here in the research paper, the study fails to discuss the information regarding the inclusion of any vulnerable people in the sample, which raise the question on the validity and quality of the research paper. In the other paper by Kulnik et al. (2019), although the research paper has a detailed description of the sampling process, it fails to clarify the aspect variability who interfere with the quality and validity of the research paper, as mentioned by Sarstedt et al. (2018), if vulnerable people are selected in the research study, the research article must mention that what types arrangement are done to provide proper protection and care to the vulnerable people. The given research article does not have any discussion regarding the inclusion of vulnerable people and the way researchers deals with them. In this context, this lack of information can be considered as the drawbacks of the sampling process presented in the research paper.

Reference list:

Ames, H., Glenton, C. and Lewin, S., 2019. Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), pp.1-9.

Butler, A.E., Copnell, B. and Hall, H., 2018. The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Collegian, 25(5), pp.561-566.

Chendrasekhar, A., Kuczabski, B., Cohen, D., Grageda, M., Genovese-Scullin, D., Patwari, J. and Harris, L., 2020. Delayed sequelae related to mild traumatic brain injury in children. Global pediatric health, 7, p.2333794X20947988.

Conlon, C., Timonen, V., Elliott-O’Dare, C., O’Keeffe, S. and Foley, G., 2020. Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research, 30(6), pp.947-959.

Farrugia, B., 2019. WASP (write a scientific paper): Sampling in qualitative research. Early human development, 133, pp.69-71.

Fisher, M.J. and Bloomfield, J., 2019. Understanding the research process. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association, 22(1), p.22.

Gabriel, A.S., Podsakoff, N.P., Beal, D.J., Scott, B.A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J.P. and Butts, M.M., 2019. Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), pp.969-1006.

Gabriel, A.S., Podsakoff, N.P., Beal, D.J., Scott, B.A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J.P. and Butts, M.M., 2019. Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), pp.969-1006.

Gentles, S.J. and Vilches, S.L., 2017. Calling for a shared understanding of sampling terminology in qualitative research: Proposed clarifications derived from critical analysis of a methods overview by McCrae and Purssell. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), p.1609406917725678.

Hoeber, O., Hoeber, L., Snelgrove, R. and Wood, L., 2017. Interactively Producing Purposive Samples for Qualitative Research using Exploratory Search. In SCST@ CHIIR (pp. 18-20).

Kulnik, S.T., Halter, M., Hilton, A., Baron, A., Garner, S., Jarman, H., Klaassen, B. and Oliver, E., 2019. Confidence and willingness among laypersons in the UK to act in a head injury situation: a qualitative focus group study. BMJ open, 9(11), p.e033531.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Collins, K.M., 2017. The role of sampling in mixed methods-research. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), pp.133-156.

Rahi, S., 2017. Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), pp.1-5.

Raza, M., Aslam, N., Le-Minh, H., Hussain, S., Cao, Y. and Khan, N.M., 2017. A critical analysis of research potential, challenges, and future directives in industrial wireless sensor networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(1), pp.39-95.

Sarstedt, M., Bengart, P., Shaltoni, A.M. and Lehmann, S., 2018. The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising, 37(4), pp.650-663.

Schreier, M., 2018. Sampling and generalization. The Sage handbook of qualitative data collection, pp.84-98.

Sharma, G., 2017. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International journal of applied research, 3(7), pp.749-752.

Continue your exploration of Contrasting and Comparing Qualitative and Quantitative Research Approaches with our related content.