Who Cited It

Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling

2016 · American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics · 11,123 citations · 0 from inside this corpus

İlker Etikan

This article studied and compared the two nonprobability sampling techniques namely, Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling are Nonprobability Sampling Techniques that a researcher uses to choose a sample of subjects/units from a population. Although, Nonprobability sampling has a lot of limitations due to the subjective nature in choosing the sample and thus it is not good representative of the population, but it is useful especially when randomization is impossible like when the population is very large. It can be useful when the researcher has limited resources, time and workforce. It can also be used when the research does not aim to generate results that will be used to create generalizations pertaining to the entire population. Therefore, there is a need to use nonprobability sampling techniques. The aim of this study is to compare among the two nonrandom sampling techniques in order to know whether one technique is better or useful than the other. Different articles were reviewed to compare between Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling and it is concluded that the choice of the techniques (Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling) depends on the nature and type of the research.

Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling (2016)Comparison of Convenience Sam…Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches (2002)Research methods in anthropol…
1 of 1 neighbouring works in this corpus. Blue is what this paper cites; orange is what cites it, and a dashed line is one neighbour citing another. Only the largest labels are drawn — every node carries its full title on hover.
this paper works it cites works citing it node size = global citations · hover for the full title

What this paper cites, inside the corpus

Topics

Text and Document Classification TechnologiesComputer Science
Advanced Text Analysis TechniquesComputer Science

Is this record sound?

complete

Nothing in this record contradicts itself and no field we check is missing.

  • supports1 author record(s) attached.
  • supports25 reference(s) recorded.
  • neutralThe DOI carries no year to check against.
  • supportsA title is present.

Provenance

Everything above was read from one stored OpenAlex payload, fetched 2026-09-04T03:58:40+00:00.

sha256 7e3d99a592f7f61f…