Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,275

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 access
Naderifar, Mahin, Goli, Hamideh, Ghaljaie, Fereshteh·2017·Strides in Development of Medical Education
DOI 10.5812/sdme.67670
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5812/sdme.67670

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Abedsaeidi J, 2015, Research Method in Medical Sciences and health.
  2. Polit DF, 2010, Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice.
  3. Speziale HS, 2011, Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative.
  4. Hejazi S, 2006, Sampling and its variants: Introduction to Research Methodology in Medical Sciences.
  5. Ahmadzadehasl M, 2010, Sampling and samplesize calculation: Basic Principles of Research in Medical Sciences.
  6. Burns N, 1993, Conduct Critique Util., 4
  7. Polit-O'Hara D, 2006, Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization., 1
  8. Jalali R, 2013, J Qual Res Health Sci., 1, 310
  9. 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. Magnani R, 2005, AIDS., 19 Suppl 2, S67, 10.1097/01.aids.0000172879.20628.e1 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hughes M, 2005, Buzzmarketing: get people to talk about your stuff.
  12. 10.1093/her/cyn055 · DOI
  13. Charkazi A, 2012, J Health Syst Res., 7, 986
  14. Heshmati F, 2010, Barrier to forming and implementing academic service partnership in nursing; a qualitative study.
  15. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-33 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-33
  16. 10.1161/circoutcomes.108.830398 · doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.108.830398
  17. Zaghloul AA, 2008, J Multidiscip Healthc., 1, 1
  18. Zareipour MA, 2011, J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Faculty., 9
  19. 10.1186/1472-6955-9-13 · DOI
  20. Mishima SM, 2010, Rev Lat Am Enfermagem., 18, 436, 10.1590/S0104-11692010000300020 · doi:10.1590/s0104-11692010000300020
  21. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01850.x · DOI

Cited by

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)
DOI
10.5812/sdme.67670
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

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.