Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples
Open accessAbstract
Background: Purposive sampling has a long developmental history and there are as many views that it is simple and straightforward as there are about its complexity. The reason for purposive sampling is the better matching of the sample to the aims and objectives of the research, thus improving the rigour of the study and trustworthiness of the data and results. Four aspects to this concept have previously been described: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Aims: The aim of this paper is to outline the nature and intent of purposive sampling, presenting three different case studies as examples of its application in different contexts. Results: Presenting individual case studies has highlighted how purposive sampling can be integrated into varying contexts dependent on study design. The sampling strategies clearly situate each study in terms of trustworthiness for data collection and analysis. The selected approach to purposive sampling used in each case aligns to the research methodology, aims and objectives, thus addressing each of the aspects of rigour. Conclusions: Making explicit the approach used for participant sampling provides improved methodological rigour as judged by the four aspects of trustworthiness. The cases presented provide a guide for novice researchers of how rigour may be addressed in qualitative research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Responses are subject to self-selection and social desirability biases.
“As with all survey studies, responses are subject to self-selection and social desirability biases 15 .”
From Radiology staff perspectives after decommissioning an artificial intelligence (AI) tool for expedited lung cancer triage (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes voluntary participation and says that women in one case study self-select, supporting a concern about who responds. It does not address social desirability bias or establish that both biases apply to all survey studies. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPurposive sampling was used because participants needed direct knowledge of program planning, management, teaching, or participation.
“Purposive sampling was used because participants needed direct knowledge of program planning, management, teaching, or participation [45].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277 · see citing works
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y · Cited by 12,038 · see citing works
Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide
Robinson, O. C. (2014) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.801543 · Cited by 3,232 · see citing works
Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling: Merging or clear boundaries?
Coyne, I. T. (1997) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x · Cited by 2,402 · see citing works
Thorne, S. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315426259 · Cited by 859 · see citing works
Tuckett, A. G. (2004) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2004.07.12.1.47.c5930 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
A qualitative study of depressive symptoms and well‐being among first‐time mothers
Haga, S. M., Lynne, A., Slinning, K., & Kraft, P. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00950.x · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Amankwaa L. (2016) Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Cultural Diversity 23(3): 121–125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baillie L. (2015) Promoting and evaluating scientific rigour in qualitative research. Nursing Standard 29(46): 36–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campbell S, Watson B, Gibson A, et al. (2004) Comprehensive service and practice development: City Hospitals Sunderland's experience of patient journeys. Practice Development in Health Care 3(1): 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Draucker CB, Martsolf DS, Ross R, et al. (2007) Theoretical sampling and category development in Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research 17(8): 1137–1148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gelling L. (2014) Qualitative research. Nursing Standard 29(30): 43–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guba EG. (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development 29(2): 75–91. [Google Scholar]
- Hunt M. (2009) Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: Reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qualitative Health Research 19(9): 1284–1292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kelly S. (2010) Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vries R. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Miles M, Huberman A. (1994) An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Mason J. (2002) Qualitative researching, 2nd ed. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Morse J. (2000) Editorial: Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research 10(1): 3–5. [Google Scholar]
- Ovretveit J. (1998) Evaluating Health Interventions, Buckingham: Open University. [Google Scholar]
- Prior SJ and Campbell S (2018) Patient and family involvement: a discussion of co-led redesign of healthcare services. Journal of Participatory Medicine 10(1): e5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Punch K. (2004) Developing Effective Research Proposals, London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Reed J, Procter S, Murray S. (1996) A sampling strategy for qualitative research. Nursing Research 3(4): 52–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schensul J (2011) Methodology, methods and tools in qualitative research in Lapan S, Quartaroli M and Riemer F (eds) Qualitative Research. Hoboken: Wiley, 69–103.
- Shenton A (2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, no. 22, pp. 63–75.
- Thorne S, Kirkham SR, O'Flynn-Magee K. (2004) The analytic challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3(1): 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Thorne S, Reimer Kirkha S, MacDonald-Emes J. (1997) Interpretive Description: A noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing and Health 20(2): 167–177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trost JA. (1986) Statistically non-representative stratified sampling: A sampling technique for qualitative studies. Qualitative Sociology 9(1): 54–57. [Google Scholar]
- Tuckett A. (2004) Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities. Nurse Researcher 12(1): 47–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Young SM (2020) An examination of the influences affecting maternal mental wellbeing after first-time childbirth in Tasmania. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Tasmania.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Purposive sampling in qualitative research: a framework for the entire journey
Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Rony, M. K. K., Kayesh, I., Bala, S. D., Akter, F., & Parvin, M. R. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25718 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
McKinlay, A. R., May, T., Dawes, J., Fancourt, D., & Burton, A. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053676 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Wang, F., Li, N., Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, G. K. W. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00547-9 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Zhang, M., Scandiffio, J., Younus, S., Jeyakumar, T., Karsan, I., Charow, R., Salhia, M., & Wiljer, D. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/47847 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“This approach was also undertaken to gain a wide range of perspectives, attitudes, and perceptions [34,35]”
BackgroundGenerative AI and the future of connectivist learning in higher education
Liang, E. S., & Bai, S. (2025) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2024.2386085 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Climate Change-Induced Hazard Risks and Migration in Bangladesh: A Case Study
Assraf Seddiky, M., Ara, E., & Karim, A. (2024) · Current Research in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100253 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Karahan, E. (2023) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2023.2200887 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Fagbemi, T., Dosumu, O., Adigun, R., Nakpodia, F., & Sakariyahu, R. (2025) · Financial Accountability & Management · doi:10.1111/faam.12408 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Lin, C.-C., Han, C.-Y., Wu, M.-L. (., Hsiao, P.-R., Wang, L.-H., & Chen, L.-C. (2021) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104935 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Abukhalaf, R., Aldridge, M. M., & Smith, J. A. (2021) · Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies · doi:10.32602/jafas.2021.016 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Teaching Practice: Insights from Mentor Teachers in Johannesburg
Moosa, M., & Moodley, N. P. (2024) · Africa Education Review · doi:10.1080/18146627.2024.2347236 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Balaskas, S., & Yfantidou, I. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1764803 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“The design investigated latent interactions, moderated mediation, and SEM requirements for validity and reliability (Campbell et al., 2020; Nyimbili and Nyimbili, 2024; Suen et al., 2014).”
Romance Fraud: Its Repercussions on Victims’ Wellbeing
Gauci, C., & Vella, M. G. (2025) · Women & Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/08974454.2025.2600304 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Department of Education Management, P. A. C. E., Letuma, M. C., Dlamini, M. E., & Department of Curriculum Studies and Higher Education, U. O. F. S. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Management & Development Studies · doi:10.53378/ijemds.353284 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Junaidi, M., Padmadewi, N. N., Utami, I. G. A. L. P., & Suarcaya, P. (2026) · Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE) · doi:10.37251/jee.v7i3.3428
“Purposive sampling was used because participants needed direct knowledge of program planning, management, teaching, or participation [45].”
Packer, J., Dean, G., Storey, M., Malamateniou, C., & Shelmerdine, S. C. (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8941291/v1
- Authors
- Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Steve
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Nursing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-06-18
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 652-661
- ISSN
- 1361-4096 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-9871
- 1744-988X
- PMC
- PMC7932468
- OpenAlex
- W3036063864
- Cited by
- 3,772
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1048 · 2025: 1091 · 2024: 867 · 2023: 472 · 2022: 212 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 289.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of research in nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UTAS Research Repository (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- purposive sampling, trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, participant selection, research methodology guidelines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
