TY - JOUR
T1 - Convenience samples and caregiving research
T2 - How generalizable are the findings?
AU - Pruchno, Rachel A.
AU - Brill, Jonathan E.
AU - Shands, Yvonne
AU - Gordon, Judith R.
AU - Genderson, Maureen Wilson
AU - Rose, Miriam
AU - Cartwright, Francine
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Beth Lewis, PhD, for her work as project director on the BALANCE Study; the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Research Call Center staff, whose hard work and perseverance yielded the data; and the National Institute on Aging, whose generous support funded this study (‘‘Work-Family Conflicts of Older Women’’ Grant R01 AG 20695).
PY - 2008/12
Y1 - 2008/12
N2 - Purpose: We contrast characteristics of respondents recruited using convenience strategies with those of respondents recruited by random digit dial (RDD) methods. We compare sample variances, means, and interrelationships among variables generated from the convenience and RDD samples. Design and Methods: Women aged 50 to 64 who work full time and provide care to a community-dwelling older person were recruited using either RDD (N = 55) or convenience methods (N = 87). Telephone interviews were conducted using reliable, valid measures of demographics, characteristics of the care recipient, help provided to the care recipient, evaluations of caregiver-care recipient relationship, and outcomes common to caregiving research. Results: Convenience and RDD samples had similar variances on 68.4% of the examined variables. We found significant mean differences for 63% of the variables examined. Bivariate correlations suggest that one would reach different conclusions using the convenience and RDD sample data sets. Implications: Researchers should use convenience samples cautiously, as they may have limited generalizability.
AB - Purpose: We contrast characteristics of respondents recruited using convenience strategies with those of respondents recruited by random digit dial (RDD) methods. We compare sample variances, means, and interrelationships among variables generated from the convenience and RDD samples. Design and Methods: Women aged 50 to 64 who work full time and provide care to a community-dwelling older person were recruited using either RDD (N = 55) or convenience methods (N = 87). Telephone interviews were conducted using reliable, valid measures of demographics, characteristics of the care recipient, help provided to the care recipient, evaluations of caregiver-care recipient relationship, and outcomes common to caregiving research. Results: Convenience and RDD samples had similar variances on 68.4% of the examined variables. We found significant mean differences for 63% of the variables examined. Bivariate correlations suggest that one would reach different conclusions using the convenience and RDD sample data sets. Implications: Researchers should use convenience samples cautiously, as they may have limited generalizability.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59049095905&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59049095905&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/geront/48.6.820
DO - 10.1093/geront/48.6.820
M3 - Article
C2 - 19139255
AN - SCOPUS:59049095905
SN - 0016-9013
VL - 48
SP - 820
EP - 827
JO - Gerontologist
JF - Gerontologist
IS - 6
ER -