When population characteristics are unclear, we typically adopt a non-probability sampling approach. In that case, should we prioritize sample size and procedure?
Even if your sample is not statistically generalizable, you should give other researchers a precise account of how the sample was selected. Aside from making it possible to judge your chosen procedures, this allows for the possibility that others could replicate those procedures.
I agree, most samples are not probability samples in field ecology. We just need to recognize they are not representative. If properly reported the estimated parameter are useful for sample size deriviation and meta-analysis mentioning the same constraints.
Primero, antes de hacernos esta pregunta, debemos identificar el comportamiento de las variables si responden a una población determinada, en este caso, ver si el enfoque es cuantitativo o cualitativo. Este aspecto determina el muestreo.
🔹 Procedure first, to ensure relevance and consistency.
🔹 Sample size second, to support analytical depth and general insights.
None probability sampling results in observations that are are not applicable to the population. Random sampling, simple or stratified, with a sample frame that fits the population, will give results that can be applied to the population with valid probability estimates.
La probabilidad se fundamenta en el nivel de ocurrencia de un evento, por tanto, está orientado a medir la subjetividad.
Thank you for your responses. Could Victor Machaca, who answered in a different language, please translate it into English so I can understand? Thank you again.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology