Suppr超能文献

概率抽样总是更好吗?配额抽样与概率抽样调查结果的比较。

Is probability sampling always better? A comparison of results from a quota and a probability sample survey.

作者信息

Cumming R G

机构信息

Department of Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital.

出版信息

Community Health Stud. 1990;14(2):132-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1990.tb00033.x.

Abstract

Two surveys in the same defined population in Sydney's western suburbs in 1986 and 1987 provided the opportunity to compare results obtained from a quota and a probability sample survey. These surveys were designed to provide information for the planning of local health promotion programs. The quota sample survey was conducted in shopping centres and used quota sampling to select 1727 respondents. In the second survey, area probability sampling was used to select 484 respondents. This survey had a response rate of 65 per cent. There were 15 questions common to both surveys; results of only three differed significantly (p less than 0.05) between surveys. None of these differences was important from a public health perspective. The agreement between the results of these two surveys probably reflects the fact that the same selection bias has operated in both. Unless a very high response rate can be achieved, quota sample surveys with age and sex quota controls may be an acceptable alternative to probability sample surveys for gathering local data relevant to the development of health programs.

摘要

1986年和1987年在悉尼西郊同一特定人群中进行的两项调查,提供了比较配额抽样调查和概率抽样调查结果的机会。这些调查旨在为当地健康促进项目的规划提供信息。配额抽样调查在购物中心进行,采用配额抽样方法选取了1727名受访者。在第二项调查中,采用区域概率抽样方法选取了484名受访者。这项调查的回复率为65%。两项调查共有15个相同的问题;调查结果中只有三个问题存在显著差异(p小于0.05)。从公共卫生角度来看,这些差异均无重要意义。这两项调查结果之间的一致性可能反映出这样一个事实,即两项调查都存在相同的选择偏差。除非能够实现非常高的回复率,否则对于收集与健康项目开展相关的当地数据而言,在年龄和性别配额控制下的配额抽样调查可能是概率抽样调查的一个可接受的替代方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验