As we mentioned previously, the first thing we should do before conducting a survey is to identify the population that we want to study. In this lesson, we will show you examples of how to identify the population in a study, and determine whether or not the study actually represents the intended population. We will discuss different techniques for random sampling that are intended to ensure a population is well represented in a sample.

We will also identify the difference between an observational study and an experiment, and ways experiments can be conducted. By the end of this lesson, we hope that you will also be confident in identifying when an experiment may have been affected by confounding or the placebo effect, and the methods that are employed to avoid them.

Sampling Methods and Bias

Selecting a Population

Suppose we are hired by a politician to determine the amount of support he has among the electorate should he decide to run for another term.  What population should we study? Every person in the district? Not every person is eligible to vote, and regardless of how strongly someone likes or dislikes the candidate, they don’t have much to do with him being re-elected if they are not able to vote.

What about eligible voters in the district? That might be better, but if someone is eligible to vote but does not register by the deadline, they won’t have any say in the election either. What about registered voters? Many people are registered but choose not to vote. What about “likely voters?”

This is the criteria used in much political polling, but it is sometimes difficult to define a “likely voter.” Is it someone who voted in the last election? In the last general election? In the last presidential election? Should we consider someone who just turned 18 a “likely voter?” They weren’t eligible to vote in the past, so how do we judge the likelihood that they will vote in the next election?

In November 1998, former professional wrestler Jesse “The Body” Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. Up until right before the election, most polls showed he had little chance of winning. There were several contributing factors to the polls not reflecting the actual intent of the electorate:

• Ventura was running on a third-party ticket and most polling methods are better suited to a two-candidate race.
• Many respondents to polls may have been embarrassed to tell pollsters that they were planning to vote for a professional wrestler.
• The mere fact that the polls showed Ventura had little chance of winning might have prompted some people to vote for him in protest to send a message to the major-party candidates.

But one of the major contributing factors was that Ventura recruited a substantial amount of support from young people, particularly college students, who had never voted before and who registered specifically to vote in the gubernatorial election. The polls did not deem these young people likely voters (since in most cases young people have a lower rate of voter registration and a turnout rate for elections) and so the polling samples were subject to sampling bias: they omitted a portion of the electorate that was weighted in favor of the winning candidate.

So even identifying the population can be a difficult job, but once we have identified the population, how do we choose an appropriate sample? Remember, although we would prefer to survey all members of the population, this is usually impractical unless the population is very small, so we choose a sample. There are many ways to sample a population, but there is one goal we need to keep in mind: we would like the sample to be representative of the population.

Returning to our hypothetical job as a political pollster, we would not anticipate very accurate results if we drew all of our samples from among the customers at a Starbucks, nor would we expect that a sample drawn entirely from the membership list of the local Elks club would provide a useful picture of district-wide support for our candidate.

One way to ensure that the sample has a reasonable chance of mirroring the population is to employ randomness. The most basic random method is simple random sampling.

It is always possible, however, that even a random sample might end up not being totally representative of the population.  If we repeatedly take samples of 1000 people from among the population of likely voters in the state of Washington, some of these samples might tend to have a slightly higher percentage of Democrats (or Republicans) than does the general population; some samples might include more older people and some samples might include more younger people; etc. In most cases, this sampling variability is not significant.

To help account for variability, pollsters might instead use a stratified sample.

Other sampling methods include systematic sampling.

The Worst Way to Sample

Perhaps the worst types of sampling methods are convenience samples and voluntary response samples.

These problematic scenarios for statistics gathering are discussed further in the following video.

Experiments

Observing vs. Acting

So far, we have primarily discussed observational studies – studies in which conclusions would be drawn from observations of a sample or the population. In some cases these observations might be unsolicited, such as studying the percentage of cars that turn right at a red light even when there is a “no turn on red” sign. In other cases the observations are solicited, like in a survey or a poll.

In contrast, it is common to use experiments when exploring how subjects react to an outside influence. In an experiment, some kind of treatment is applied to the subjects and the results are measured and recorded.

These examples are discussed further in the following video.

When conducting experiments, it is essential to isolate the treatment being tested.

The difficulty with this scenario is that it is not clear whether the curriculum is responsible for the improvement, or whether the improvement is due to a math specialist teaching the class. This is called confounding – when it is not clear which factor or factors caused the observed effect. Confounding is the downfall of many experiments, though sometimes it is hidden.

View the following for additional discussion of these examples.

Ideally, the groups are otherwise as similar as possible, isolating the treatment as the only potential source of difference between the groups. For this reason, the method of dividing groups is important. Some researchers attempt to ensure that the groups have similar characteristics (same number of females, same number of people over 50, etc.), but it is nearly impossible to control for every characteristic. Because of this, random assignment is very commonly used.

Sometimes not giving the control group anything does not completely control for confounding variables. For example, suppose a medicine study is testing a new headache pill by giving the treatment group the pill and the control group nothing. If the treatment group showed improvement, we would not know whether it was due to the medicine in the pill, or a response to have taken any pill. This is called a placebo effect.

To control for the placebo effect, a placebo, or dummy treatment, is often given to the control group. This way, both groups are truly identical except for the specific treatment given.

When using a placebo, it would defeat the purpose if the participant knew they were receiving the placebo.