The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research
Open accessAbstract
Background and Objectives Snowball sampling is applied when samples with the target characteristics are not easily accessible. This research describes snowball sampling as a purposeful method of data collection in qualitative research. Methods This paper is a descriptive review of previous research papers. Data were gathered using English keywords, including “review,” “declaration,” “snowball,” and “chain referral,” as well as Persian keywords that are equivalents of the following: “purposeful sampling,” “snowball,” “qualitative research,” and “descriptive review.” The databases included Google Scholar, Scopus, Irandoc, ProQuest, Science Direct, SID, MagIran, Medline, and Cochrane. The search was limited to Persian and English articles written between 2005 and 2013. Results The preliminary search yielded 433 articles from PubMed, 88 articles from Scopus, 1 article from SID, and 18 articles from MagIran. Among 125 articles, methodological and non-research articles were omitted. Finally, 11 relevant articles, which met the criteria, were selected for review. Conclusions Different methods of snowball sampling can be applied to facilitate scientific research, provide community-based data, and hold health educational programs. Snowball sampling can be effectively used to analyze vulnerable groups or individuals under special care. In fact, it allows researchers to access susceptible populations. Thus, it is suggested to consider snowball sampling strategies while working with the attendees of educational programs or samples of research studies.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Content of Weblogs Written by Health Professionals
Lagu, T., Kaufman, E. J., Asch, D. A., & Armstrong, K. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0726-6 · Cited by 255
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Abedsaeidi J, 2015, Research Method in Medical Sciences and health.
- Polit DF, 2010, Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice.
- Speziale HS, 2011, Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative.
- Hejazi S, 2006, Sampling and its variants: Introduction to Research Methodology in Medical Sciences.
- Ahmadzadehasl M, 2010, Sampling and samplesize calculation: Basic Principles of Research in Medical Sciences.
- Burns N, 1993, Conduct Critique Util., 4
- Polit-O'Hara D, 2006, Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization., 1
- Jalali R, 2013, J Qual Res Health Sci., 1, 310
- 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x · DOI · Paper page
- Magnani R, 2005, AIDS., 19 Suppl 2, S67, 10.1097/01.aids.0000172879.20628.e1 · DOI · Paper page
- Hughes M, 2005, Buzzmarketing: get people to talk about your stuff.
- 10.1093/her/cyn055 · DOI
- Charkazi A, 2012, J Health Syst Res., 7, 986
- Heshmati F, 2010, Barrier to forming and implementing academic service partnership in nursing; a qualitative study.
- 10.1186/1472-6963-12-33 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-33
- 10.1161/circoutcomes.108.830398 · doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.108.830398
- Zaghloul AA, 2008, J Multidiscip Healthc., 1, 1
- Zareipour MA, 2011, J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Faculty., 9
- 10.1186/1472-6955-9-13 · DOI
- Mishima SM, 2010, Rev Lat Am Enfermagem., 18, 436, 10.1590/S0104-11692010000300020 · doi:10.1590/s0104-11692010000300020
- 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01850.x · DOI
Cited by
The Lancet Commission on ending stigma and discrimination in mental health
Thornicroft, G., Sunkel, C., Alikhon Aliev, A., Baker, S., Brohan, E., el Chammay, R., Davies, K., Demissie, M., Duncan, J., Fekadu, W., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01470-2 · Cited by 748
COVID-19 fear in Eastern Europe: validation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale
Reznik, A., Gritsenko, V., Konstantinov, V., Khamenka, N., & Isralowitz, R. (2021) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00283-3 · Cited by 479
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
Zhang, Z., Xu, Y., Wang, Y., Yao, B., Ritchie, D., Wu, T., Yu, M., Wang, D., & Li, T. J.-J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517479 · Cited by 174
An attention-based view of AI assimilation in public sector organizations: The case of Saudi Arabia
Alshahrani, A., Dennehy, D., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101617 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F.
- Venue
- Strides in Development of Medical Education
- Publisher
- Brieflands
- Published
- 2017-09-30
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1735-4242 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2801288875
- Cited by
- 2,275
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 118.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5812/sdme.67670
- The paper
- Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides in Development of Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
