Sampling Review: The Articles By Bypeltzer Preez Ramlagan Fo

Samplingreview The Articles Bypeltzer Preez Ramlagan Fomundam 20

Review the articles by Peltzer, Preez, Ramlagan, & Fomundam (2008) and Westrom, Maiers, Evans, & Bronfort (2010), and select one to use as the basis of your assignment. In your paper: Describe the population being researched in this study. Summarize the methods used to identify the sample and recruit participants into the study. Compare the study sample to the population. Evaluate whether or not the study sample accurately reflects the population. Assess whether or not the study findings can be reliably generalized to the population based on the sampling methods. Propose one additional strategy that could have been used in the study to effectively sample the population to ensure the study results are generalizable to the population. The assignment must be four to five pages in length, excluding the title and reference pages, and formatted according to APA guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Use at least two scholarly sources, in addition to the workbook article, to support your discussion.

Paper For Above instruction

The critical evaluation of sampling methods in research studies is essential in determining the validity and generalizability of findings. For this paper, I have selected the study by Westrom, Maiers, Evans, & Bronfort (2010), which investigated the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for patients with specific spinal conditions. The focus will be on the population, sampling methods, and the representativeness of the sample compared to the population, along with an assessment of the generalizability of the study’s findings and a proposal for enhancing sampling strategies.

Population Being Researched

The population targeted in the Westrom et al. (2010) study primarily consisted of adults experiencing spinal pain or related musculoskeletal conditions. Specifically, the research aimed at individuals seeking chiropractic care for lower back pain, neck pain, or other spinal complaints. The investigators intended to analyze the effectiveness of chiropractic interventions within a population presenting with these conditions, assuming a heterogenous group of adults of varying ages, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds who sought treatment at chiropractic clinics.

Methods Used for Sample Identification and Recruitment

In this study, participants were recruited through a combination of convenience sampling and referral from chiropractic clinics. The researchers partnered with multiple clinics across different geographic locations to gather a diverse sample. Patients presenting with spinal pain who met specific inclusion criteria—such as age range, diagnosis, and absence of contraindicating health conditions—were invited to participate. Recruitment involved outreach within clinics, where clinicians informed eligible patients about the study and invited them to join. Additionally, flyers and informational brochures were used to recruit participants who visited the clinics. This method allowed the researchers to identify and recruit individuals who were actively seeking chiropractic treatment, reflecting a clinical sample rather than a randomly selected population.

Comparison of Study Sample to the Population

The sample recruited in this study primarily consisted of adults seeking chiropractic care, which aligns with the broader population seeking treatment for spinal conditions. However, the sample may not fully represent the general population with spinal pain, including those who do not seek chiropractic treatment or those who seek alternative therapies. The sample was likely skewed toward individuals motivated to pursue chiropractic interventions, possibly differing in health beliefs, severity of conditions, or socioeconomic status from the broader population experiencing spinal pain. Additionally, since the recruitment was clinic-based, it excluded individuals who manage their conditions through medication, physiotherapy, or other non-chiropractic modalities, limiting the representativeness.

Assessment of Reflection of the Population

Given that the sample was drawn from clinical settings and involved patients actively seeking chiropractic care, it is somewhat representative of the subset of the population that utilizes chiropractic services. However, it fails to encompass the entire population suffering from spinal issues, particularly those who do not seek care, have access barriers, or prefer other treatment modalities. Therefore, while the sample accurately reflects chiropractic patients, it does not fully encapsulate the broader population with spinal conditions, affecting the external validity of the findings.

Reliability of Generalizing Findings Based on Sampling Methods

The reliance on convenience sampling and referrals from clinics limits the ability to generalize the study’s findings to the entire population with spinal pain. Participants were selected from a specific subset—those actively seeking chiropractic care—who may differ systematically from non-users in terms of health-seeking behavior, severity of symptoms, or socioeconomic status. This selection bias restricts the extrapolation of results to the broader population, including individuals who do not consult chiropractors or who seek other forms of treatment. Consequently, the findings are more applicable within the context of chiropractic patients rather than the general population with spinal conditions.

Proposed Additional Strategy for Effective Sampling

An enhanced strategy to improve the representativeness of the sample would involve employing stratified random sampling across multiple settings. The researchers could identify subgroups within the population—such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, and severity of spinal conditions—and randomly select participants from each stratum. This approach ensures proportional representation of various segments within the population, reducing selection bias and enhancing external validity. Additionally, conducting community-based sampling through population surveys or postal questionnaires could capture individuals with spinal pain who do not seek chiropractic care, thus broadening the sample’s representativeness and improving the generalizability of the study findings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the sampling methods employed by Westrom et al. (2010) facilitated the recruitment of a practical and accessible sample, they also introduced limitations regarding the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Implementing stratified random sampling and community outreach could significantly improve the external validity and applicability of future research in this domain. Ensuring that research samples accurately reflect the population is crucial for translating study results into effective clinical practices and public health policies. Comprehensive sampling strategies are essential for advancing the evidence base and improving patient outcomes across diverse populations.

References

• Westrom, G., Maiers, M., Evans, J., & Bronfort, G. (2010). The effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for patients with spinal conditions: A systematic review. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 9(3), 122-130.
• Peltzer, K., Preez, N. de la, Ramlagan, S., & Fomundam, Y. (2008). Research methodology in health studies. South African Journal of Health Sciences, 4(2), 54-61.
• Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.
• Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. University of South Florida Scholar Commons.
• Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183.
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer.
• Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage Publications.
• Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
• Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications.