Fatma Ezgi CAN
(İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
(Fırat Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik ve Tıp Bilişimi Anabilim Dalı, Elazığ, Türkiye)
(Bezmialem Vakıf Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik ve Tıp Bilişimi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2019Cilt: 2Sayı: 1ISSN: 2636-8072Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 5İngilizce

76 0
Basic Sampling Methods: What is the Knowledge Level of Academic Staff?
Objective: Researchers are rarely able to sample the entire population of interest in health science studies, owing to a large number of subjects. In such situations, the researcher studies a sample obtained from the target population and applies the findings from the sample to infer conclusions about the related population. Obtaining valid and reliable results is completely dependent on the selection of an appropriate sampling method. The aim of this study is to inform readers about the most common sampling methods and to investigate the level of knowledge of physicians working with academic staff. Material and Methods: A total of 104 medical academic staff members participated in our study. We obtained data using a questionnaire and by conducting a face-to-face interview. Results: While 26.92% of the participants correctly answered the question on the simple random sampling, only 8.65% and 2.88% of the participants correctly answered the questions on stratified sampling and systematic sampling, respectively. No significant difference was noted in terms of matching correct sampling methods by academic category. Conclusion: In health science, obtaining reliable results can be achieved by using statistical methods during the planning stage as part of the concluding stages of the study. Biostatistics experts should be consulted at every stage of the study.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Lynn P. Sampling Error. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman AE, Liao TF, editors. The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. CA: Sage Publications; 2004.
  • 2. Sumbuloglu V, Sumbuloglu K. Sampling methods and sample size in clinical and field researches. Ankara: Alp Ofset; 2005.
  • 3. Williamson GR. Misrepresenting random sampling? A systematic review of research papers in the Journal of Advanced Nursing. J Adv Nurs 2003; 44: 278-88.
  • 4. Ercan I, Ozkaya G, Ocakoglu G, Yazici B, Sezer A, Ediz B, et al. Determining biostatistics knowledge of students and physicians in medical school. Interstat 2008; 1: 1-17.
  • 5. Ercan I, Ocakoglu G, Ozkaya G, Sigirli D, Cangur S, Gunel Karadeniz P. An international survey of physicians’ knowledge of biostatistics. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 2013; 33: 401-9.
  • 6. Ocakoglu G, Ercan I, Gunel Karadeniz P. Knowledge of dentists about biostatistics: a worldwide survey. e-J Den 2013; 3: 318-27.
  • 7. Ocakoglu G, Ercan I, Kaya MO, Uzabaci E, Can FE. Investigating academic veterinarians’ knowledge of biostatistics: a web-based survey. Vet J Ankara Univ 2015; 62: 223-8.
  • 8. Thompson SK. Simple Random Sampling. Sampling. 3rd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
  • 9. Levy PS Lemeshow S. Sampling of Populations Methods and Applications. 4th edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
  • 10. Hsia J. Sampling with and without Replacement [Electronic version]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05717/full
  • 11. Kim SW, Heeringa S, Solenberger P. Sample allocation under a population model and stratified inclusion probability proportionate to size sampling. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section ASA 2007; 3061-8.
  • 12. Singh AS, Masuku MB. Fundamentals of applied research and sampling techniques. IJMAS 2013; 2: 124-32.
  • 13. Sathian B, Sreedharan J, Roy B, Banerjee I, Supram HS. Relevance of sampling techniques in medical research. J Biomed Sci 2015; 2: 3-6.
  • 14. Altman DG, Bland JM. Improving doctors’ understanding of statistics. J R Stat Soc Series 1991; 154: 223-67.
  • 15. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: Some recent trends. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3275-89.
  • 16. Ercan I, Yazici B, Yang Y, Ozkaya G, Cangur S, Ediz B, et al. Misusage of statistics in medical researches. EJGM 2007; 4: 127-33.
  • 17. Ercan I, Ocakoglu G, Sigirli D, Ozkaya G. Assesment of submitted manuscripts according to statistical errors in medical sciences. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 2012; 32: 1381-7.
  • 18. Strasak AM, Zaman Q, Pfeiffer K, Gobel G, Ulmer H. Statistical errors in medical research-a review of common pitfalls. Swiss Med Wkly 2007; 137: 44-9.
  • 19. Welch GE II, Gabbe SG. Review of statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1138-41.
  • 20. Šimundić AM, Nikolac N. Statistical errors in manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica Journal. Biochem Med 2009; 19: 294-300.
  • 21. Welch GE II, Gabbe SG. Statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Has anything changed? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 584-6.
  • 22. McGuigan SM. The use of statistics in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 1995; 167: 683-8.
  • 23. Lukiæ IK, Marušiæ M. Appointment of statistical editor and quality of statistics in a Small Medical Journal. Croat Med J 2001; 42: 500-3.
  • 24. Glantz SA. Biostatistics: how to detect, correct and prevent errors in the medical literature. Circulation 1980; 61: 1-7.
  • 25. Rao JNK. On the comparison of sampling with and without replacement. Int Stat Rev 1966; 34: 125-38.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.