Steve Campbell1, Melanie Greenwood2, Sarah Prior3, Toniele Shearer4, Kerrie Walkem4, Sarah Young5, Danielle Bywaters4, Kim Walker6. 1. Professor of Clinical Redesign, Nursing, Associate Head Research, School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, College of Health and Medicine, Australia. 2. Associate Professor, Director Post Graduate Courses, School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, College of Health and Medicine, Australia. 3. Lecturer, Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, College of Health and Medicine, Australia. 4. Lecturer, PhD Candidate, School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, College of Health and Medicine, Australia. 5. Professor of Health Care Improvement, School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, College of Health and Medicine, School of Health Science, Australia. 6. PhD Candidate, School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, College of Health and Medicine, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Purposive sampling has a long developmental history and there are as many views that it is simple and straightforward as there are about its complexity. The reason for purposive sampling is the better matching of the sample to the aims and objectives of the research, thus improving the rigour of the study and trustworthiness of the data and results. Four aspects to this concept have previously been described: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. AIMS: The aim of this paper is to outline the nature and intent of purposive sampling, presenting three different case studies as examples of its application in different contexts. RESULTS: Presenting individual case studies has highlighted how purposive sampling can be integrated into varying contexts dependent on study design. The sampling strategies clearly situate each study in terms of trustworthiness for data collection and analysis. The selected approach to purposive sampling used in each case aligns to the research methodology, aims and objectives, thus addressing each of the aspects of rigour. CONCLUSIONS: Making explicit the approach used for participant sampling provides improved methodological rigour as judged by the four aspects of trustworthiness. The cases presented provide a guide for novice researchers of how rigour may be addressed in qualitative research.
BACKGROUND: Purposive sampling has a long developmental history and there are as many views that it is simple and straightforward as there are about its complexity. The reason for purposive sampling is the better matching of the sample to the aims and objectives of the research, thus improving the rigour of the study and trustworthiness of the data and results. Four aspects to this concept have previously been described: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. AIMS: The aim of this paper is to outline the nature and intent of purposive sampling, presenting three different case studies as examples of its application in different contexts. RESULTS: Presenting individual case studies has highlighted how purposive sampling can be integrated into varying contexts dependent on study design. The sampling strategies clearly situate each study in terms of trustworthiness for data collection and analysis. The selected approach to purposive sampling used in each case aligns to the research methodology, aims and objectives, thus addressing each of the aspects of rigour. CONCLUSIONS: Making explicit the approach used for participant sampling provides improved methodological rigour as judged by the four aspects of trustworthiness. The cases presented provide a guide for novice researchers of how rigour may be addressed in qualitative research.
Authors: Lawrence A Palinkas; Sarah M Horwitz; Carla A Green; Jennifer P Wisdom; Naihua Duan; Kimberly Hoagwood Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2015-09
Authors: Alexander Dennis Lee; Lara C deGraauw; Bradley J Muir; Melissa N Belchos; Kaitlyn M Szabo; Christopher deGraauw; Scott D Howitt Journal: J Can Chiropr Assoc Date: 2021-12
Authors: Peter L T Hoonakker; Bat-Zion Hose; Pascale Carayon; Ben L Eithun; Deborah A Rusy; Joshua C Ross; Jonathan E Kohler; Shannon M Dean; Tom B Brazelton; Michelle M Kelly Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Sheilla L Rodríguez-Madera; Nelson Varas-Díaz; Mark Padilla; Kevin Grove; Kariela Rivera-Bustelo; Jeffrey Ramos; Violeta Contreras-Ramirez; Sergio Rivera-Rodríguez; Ricardo Vargas-Molina; Jose Santini Journal: Glob Health Res Policy Date: 2021-11-10