Sampling is an important component of research that can have a substantial impact on the findings, their validity and reliability. The article understudy is written by Labrague and McEnroe-Petitte (2016) and is concerned with the influence of the level of anxiety among women undergoing gynecological surgery. The study involved 97 participants, and it was found that exposure to music in the preoperative period reduced anxiety and associated symptoms in females undergoing gynecological surgery. This post includes a brief analysis of the sampling method Labrague and McEnroe-Petitte (2016) employed.
The researchers recruited 105 patients from a 150-bed government hospital in the Philippines (Labrague & McEnroe-Petitte, 2016). Eight women withdrew from the research due to different reasons. The purposive sampling method was utilized, and it is noteworthy that quite limited data on this process is provided in the article, which increases uncertainty regarding the validity and reliability of results. The purposive sampling implies the researcher’s reliance on their judgment when choosing the participants from the target population (Howlett et al., 2020). This sampling technique is commonly used with a comparatively small sample or when the perspective of knowledgeable individuals is needed. In the present case, the sample size was rather small, so the use of purposive sampling could be justified.
The strength and benefits of this sampling method are its cost- and time-effectiveness. The researchers recruited and chose the patients who volunteered to participate in the study. These females were also willing to respond properly to the given questions, which contributes to the reliability of the findings. At the same time, this sampling technique is associated with some limitations and weaknesses. Labrague and McEnroe-Petitte (2016) did not include sufficient details regarding the allocation of the participants into the control and experimental groups. Hence, it can be difficult to estimate the criteria used in this process, which can be associated with a substantial degree of bias. The method enhances vulnerability to mistakes in researchers’ judgments defining the participation of individuals (Howlett et al., 2020). Most importantly, the findings of such studies can hardly be generalized, which is a considerable weakness.
As mentioned above, due to the small sample size, the use of purposive sampling is possible. However, it does not promote valid and reliable results that included physiological parameters and anxiety questionnaires. Random sampling could have been a better option for the study under analysis. The purposive sampling is more justified with such data collection methods as interviews and the studies focusing on participants’ thoughts, views, and opinions (Howlett et al., 2020). Therefore, the study could have been improved if both qualitative and quantitative (or qualitative only) data had been collected. For instance, physiological parameters and anxiety levels could have been measured, but the participants (or some of them) could have been interviewed or invited to participate in focus group discussions.
On balance, it is necessary to note that the use of the purposive sampling method in the study in question was possible due to the limited sample and the focus on people committed to participating. However, this technique is associated with certain weaknesses, making the findings non-generalizable and prone to bias. The use of this sampling method could have been more justified if the researchers had analyzed qualitative data as purposive sampling is usually employed when people’s insights and perspectives on some issues, aspects, or trends are needed.
References
Howlett, B., Shelton, T. G., & Rogo, E. (2020). Evidence-based practice for health professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Labrague, L. J., & McEnroe-Petitte, D. M. (2016). Influence of music on preoperative anxiety and physiologic parameters in women undergoing gynecologic surgery. Clinical Nursing Research, 25(2), 157-173.