sampling-method.pdf ....................

2.7 Sampling
In an EFSA, it is normally neither feasible nor desirable to survey every location
and household affected by the emergency. A sample must therefore be drawn. A
sample is a selection of households or individuals from the total affected
population. The sample should represent the larger population and reduce the time
and cost of data collection. If a sample is representative, generalizations about the
total population can be extrapolated from the results of the sample survey.
It is extremely important that the sample be drawn in a methodologically rigorous
way. This section explains the key terms used in sampling, and provides guidance
on choosing the most appropriate sampling methodology for a given situation.
2.7.1 Sampling frame
The sampling frame represents the area and population that the assessment is
intended to cover, for example, a region within a country or a particular population
group, such as displaced people. The sampling frame must be defined at the
start of the assessment planning process.
The sampling frame may cover only areas and groups directly affected by the
emergency. Alternatively, it may also include indirectly affected areas and groups,
where the impact on the population can be just as severe. These include the areas
into which displaced people have moved;30 host populations for displaced people;
and areas suffering economically as a result of the emergency, such as those
whose markets depend on produce from a drought-affected area.
95
Part III / chapter 2: Planning an EFSA
PART
III
Slow-onset emergencies
In-depth assessment:
Scenario 3: A slow-onset emergency, such as a drought or long-term conflict.
• The crisis is neither urgent nor volatile. The situation has been slowly deteriorating
for some time, and some factor has now triggered an assessment (see Section 2.1).
• There are no time constraints, but the assessment results are needed soon for
programming.
• The area may be large or small.
Stratified two-stage sampling is applied (see Box 3.2): zones (strata) → locations →
households. Where possible, random samples of locations and households within those
locations are used. If random samples are not feasible, locations are selected
purposively, and households within these are selected randomly or purposively. Both
semi-structured interviews and questionnaires surveys are undertaken.
_____________
30. Technical Guidance Sheet No. 1 Integrating Migration and Displacement into Emergency Food Security
Assessments, WFP Emergency Needs Assessment Service, May 2007.

The directly and indirectly affected areas and population groups are identified from
secondary information and key informant interviews.
2.7.2 Types of sampling
The choice of sampling methodology depends on the time and resources available,
the level of access and the specific objectives of the assessment. There are two
major types of sampling approach, probability sampling and non-probability
sampling. The following two sampling approaches are commonly used in EFSAs:
• Purposive sampling (non-probability sampling): The researcher decides which
particular groups to interview. Non-probability sampling does not involve random
selection, so the results cannot be used to characterize the wider population. Its
value lies in selecting information-rich cases to gain a deeper understanding of
the situation when random sampling is not possible. The researcher selects what
she/he regards as representative sampling units, but the generalization of
findings from such a sample can always be contested.
Purposive sampling techniques are normally used in initial and rapid
assessments for rapid-onset emergencies.
• Random sampling (probability sampling): All members of the population have a
known, non-zero chance of being selected. Random sampling is based on formal
statistical theory, which allows reliable estimates to be calculated and minimizes
bias. Results can be extrapolated to the entire population with a degree of
accuracy that depends on the sample size and the variability of the indicator.
Random sampling techniques are normally used for in-depth
assessments, usually in slow-onset emergencies, and in emergency
situations once conditions have stabilized.
Table 3.3 shows the circumstances under which each type of sampling is used.
96 Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook / second edition

2.7.3 Purposive sampling
This section presents methods for initial and rapid assessments using purposive
sampling.
2.7.3.1 Principles of purposive sampling
Purposive sampling might be used when any of the following conditions apply:
• It is difficult to reach every area, household or individual member of the
population.
• Reliable information about population locations and numbers is not available.
• There is insufficient time to visit the number of households or individuals needed
for statistical analyses using a random sample. The most severely affected areas
are prioritized, for example, agricultural areas during a drought, or villages
inhabited by targeted groups during a conflict.
• There is strong evidence that nutrition and food security risks are concentrated
in certain areas or population groups, such as particular livelihood groups or
displaced people. In many cases, it is not possible to set up a sampling frame
that allows these groups or areas to be stratified.
97
PART
III
Sampling approach Circumstances
Non-probability Initial and rapid assessments
Purposive - Population data do not exist or are not reliable
- Access is limited to certain areas
- There is little time
- The situation is unstable and changing continuously
- Can be used for initial, rapid and in-depth EFSAs
Snowball - Very little information is available about the location of groups or
individuals
- People are reluctant to be registered on a list
- Time is short
- In an initial EFSA it can provide background information for a
subsequent rapid or in-depth EFSA
Convenience - Time or access is limited
- In an initial EFSA it can provide background information for a
subsequent rapid or in-depth EFSA
Probability In-depth assessments
Random - Unbiased estimates with known precision are needed
- Population data exist
- All parts of the affected area are accessible
- The situation is reasonably stable
- There is sufficient time to visit all the selected households and carry
out the required number of interviews
- Can be used for rapid and in-depth EFSAs in slow-onset emergencies
or once an emergency situation has stabilized
Table 3.3: Circumstances under which each type of sampling is used

• The assessment objectives necessitate in-depth investigation of specific issues.
For example, if the EFSA is expected to provide detailed information about the
impact of market disruptions, groups of people who depend on the markets will
be prioritized, such as traders, cash crop growers and people who rely on
purchasing their food at markets.
Although the information collected through purposive sampling cannot be
extrapolated to the entire population – as it can be in random sampling –
generalizations can be extended to the wider population under the following
circumstances:
• Triangulation is applied to all data (see Part IV). In triangulation, data are collected
from numerous sources and their convergence, or otherwise, is appraised. If data
from at least three reliable sources converge, the conclusions can be treated with
reasonable confidence.
• Purposive sampling is combined with semi-structured interviews for primary data
collection (see Section 4.3.2). This allows in-depth discussion and, consequently,
a greater understanding of the crisis, its causes and effects. Conclusions from all
the semi-structured interviews provide a sound basis for judging the extent to
which they can be extrapolated.
It is not known how representative the sample is, so generalizations made
through the purposive sampling approach are subjective (or biased), and
confidence intervals for the estimates would be irrelevant.
Good purposive sampling depends on having a thorough knowledge of the context
– the type of emergency and the characteristics of the population. Such knowledge
is initially gained through secondary data review (see Section 2.5). If secondary data
are incomplete or inaccurate, or if the situation is changing rapidly, sampling can be
adjusted as the assessment progresses. For example, population groups and areas
may be added or removed as more information about the crisis is obtained.
Purposive sampling can be combined with random sampling techniques. For
example, households might be selected through random sampling in a location
selected through purposive sampling. Note that this does not make the sample
statistically representative, which requires that the entire sampling process follow
random sampling principles (see Section 2.7.4).
2.7.3.2 Determining the sample size
There is no formula for setting the sample size for purposive sampling. Instead,
judgements must be made, based on the expected heterogeneity of areas, population
groups, locations, households and individuals. If heterogeneity is high and units are
very different from each other, a large sample is needed, but the sample size also
depends on the time and resources available. If heterogeneity is low and units are
similar to each other, a smaller sample will suffice. This is illustrated in Example 3.3.

If areas and population groups are heterogeneous, a separate sample size should
be estimated for each. The rule of thumb explained in Box 3.1 can be used,
99
PART
III
An EFSA is undertaken in the urban and rural areas of a region affected by economic
collapse. One of the objectives is to determine the impact of the crisis on livelihoods. The
assessment team decides that to do this, they need to sample according to livelihood
groups.
In the urban area, six main livelihood groups are identified:
• civil servants;
• traders;
• professional workers: doctors, engineers, teachers, etc.;
• salaried workers: shop assistants, storekeepers, construction supervisors, etc.;
• casual labourers;
• unemployed/beggars.
To understand the situation, and taking the time constraints into account, the team
decides that ten households must be interviewed from each livelihood group. This gives
a total sample size for the urban area of 6 x 10 = 60 households.
In the rural area, three main livelihood groups are identified:
• farmers producing crops for consumption and sale;
• pastoralists living from the consumption and sale of animal products;
• landless farm workers.
Again, the team decides to interview ten households per livelihood group. The total
sample size for the rural area is therefore 10 x 3 = 30 households.
Example 3.3: Heterogeneous populations: implications for purposive sampling
As a rule of thumb based on empirical experience of household food security surveys,
between 50 and 150 households per reporting domain can be included in a purposive
sample, and the following guidance applied.
If locations are clearly very different from each other:
• divide them into groups of locations with similar characteristics;
• within each group, visit seven to fifteen locations;31
• within each location, interview seven to ten households or individuals.32
If locations seem to resemble each other:
• check that there are no less obvious characteristics that may influence household food
security (see Section 2.7.3.4), such as:
- geographical dispersion of the locations, which could affect crop production
patterns, access to markets and other services, and roads;
- population size;
Box 3.1: Rule of thumb for estimating sample size in purposive sampling
_____________
31. However, whenever possible, random probability sampling is preferable to purposive sampling.
32. Here too, random sampling should be considered if it fulfils the assessment requirements.
(cont…)

In purposive sampling, the sample size can be adjusted during the assessment.
For example, if it becomes apparent that all locations within a group are very similar,
the number of locations to be visited can be reduced to seven or eight, instead of
ten to fifteen. When households are seen to be very similar, the number of
households visited in each location can be reduced in the same way. Conversely,
if there is more heterogeneity than expected, groups of locations may be
subdivided and additional groups added.
2.7.3.3 Selection of geographical zones
In purposive sampling, the geographical zones to be covered are determined
according to the nature of the crisis and the assessment objectives:
• If the crisis is small-scale and concentrated, the assessment may cover only the
directly affected area, such as when flooding affects only one isolated part of a
country.
• In a sudden-onset crisis, early assessments will prioritize the zones directly
affected, where lives are most at risk. Subsequent assessments may consider
wider economic, social and health implications.
• In a slow-onset emergency affecting the whole country, such as in a drought in
a small country that relies on agriculture, zones may be selected in any part of
the country, but random sampling would be more appropriate if time and
resources permit.
Wherever possible, it is useful to select a range of zones that include some directly
affected, some indirectly affected and some minimally affected, to provide the basis
for comparison. This is rarely possible in sudden-onset emergencies, however, so
zones are prioritized according to the expected severity of the situation in each.
In some situations, it is worth visiting areas covered by previous assessments to
allow qualitative comparisons between current and previous situations.
-
distribution of ethnic or social groups within the locations, such as different
ethnicities or social strata within communities, which may affect access to assets,
including food and income;
- direct and indirect impacts of events, etc;
• if differences exist, group the locations according to the chosen characteristic and
proceed as indicated above.
If there is no information for identifying differences among locations:
random sampling is applied, as described in Section 2.7.4.4; fewer locations and
households can be sampled because the statistics derived cannot be extrapolated with
known confidence intervals, and time is limited. The number of locations can be ten to
fifteen, with seven to ten households within each location.
(…cont)

2.7.3.4 Selection of locations within geographical zones
The locations - villages, communities or neighbourhoods - to be visited can be
identified in either of the following ways:
• They can be selected according to the expected severity of the situation, or the
characteristics of the locations and the people living in them. This method is used
when there are significant differences among the locations in a geographical
zone, or when constraints such as time and accessibility limit the number of
locations that can be visited.
• When locations are known to be similar, or when little is known about their
characteristics, those selected should be more dispersed, and hence more
representative. The number of locations should also be increased – i.e. from ten
to fifteen (see Box 3.1).33
When choosing locations, it is important to minimize the “hub effect”34 In many
emergencies, humanitarian hubs develop in the affected areas, typically main towns,
where aid agencies congregate, set up field offices and stockpile resources. Villages
close to a humanitarian hub tend to receive more attention and services than those
further away. When choosing locations to visit for an EFSA, it is important to bear
this in mind and visit some locations that are less easily accessible.
The list of purposively selected locations to be visited can be changed during the
assessment, for example, if it is found that initial assumptions about the most
affected locations were wrong or incomplete. New locations can be added, and
existing ones removed from the list.
As with random sampling, it is better to visit a relatively large number of locations
and interview a few households in each, than to visit fewer locations and interview
many households in each.
2.7.3.5 Selection of households and individuals within locations
Within each of the locations visited by the assessment team, households,
individuals and groups are selected for interview. The aim is to achieve as valid
and accurate an impression of the location’s entire population as possible.
If the location is reasonably homogeneous and there is sufficient time, households
and individuals can be selected through random sampling (see Section 2.7.4.5).
When time is limited, the groups expected to be most severely affected are
prioritized. Within these vulnerable groups, households may be selected purposively,
such as the most severely affected within the group. This gives the sample a high bias
101
PART
III
_____________
33. However, when the means allow, random sampling is still preferable.
34. Guidelines for Emergency Assessment, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), 2005.

towards the most affected. In this case no generalizations of findings to the general
population can be made, only statements about the worst-affected households.
Alternatively, within the vulnerable groups, representative households can be
selected by the analyst or, preferably, at random.
For some social stratifications it is often difficult to develop a proper sampling
frame, so purposive sampling is used. These groups include:
• displaced people living in a host community;
• the community hosting the displaced people;
• the landless and the poor;
• the livelihood groups that are expected to be most severely affected by the crisis,
such as pastoralists during droughts or traders during market collapse;
• members of an ethnic group that is targeted during conflict.
It is advisable also to consider groups that are less severely affected. This gives a
basis for comparison, and helps to confirm or reject initial assumptions about
vulnerability.
2.7.3.6 Example of purposive sampling
Example 3.4 describes purposive sampling from an EFSA carried out in Rwanda in
2006.
In April 2006, WFP and partners undertook an EFSA in Rwanda to assess the impact of
drought on household food security. The EFSA was triggered by indications of severe
hardship after two years of poor rainfall. Sampling was based on Rwanda’s administrative
system: the country is divided into districts, which are subdivided into sectors, and then
into cells of 20 to 40 households each.
Sampling approach
Five of the most drought-affected districts were identified from a review of field mission
reports by various agencies and government services, and discussion with the country
office.
In each of the five districts, a purposive sample of eight cells was drawn. The cells were
identified as follows:
• The most affected sectors were selected by the district executive secretaries.
• The head of each of the most affected sectors selected the most affected cells.
Within each selected cell, interviews were held with four to eight of the worst-off
households. Key informant interviews, focus group discussions and market and health
centre surveys were undertaken, to complement and triangulate the information.
This sampling approach did not provide an overview of the situation, as it focused on the
most severely affected areas and households. However, given the time and information
limitations, this type of sampling enabled conclusions to be drawn about the severity of
the situation and how the worst-affected people can or cannot cope with it.
Example 3.4: Purposive sampling in the 2006 Rwanda EFSA

When purposive sampling is used, the assessment report should explain why it
has been used and describe the process for selecting which people to interview.
2.7.3.7 Snowball sampling
Snowball sampling can be used if neither random nor purposive sampling is
feasible. This may be the case when the population of interest cannot easily be
found, such as refugees scattered across a large city, or when people do not wish
to be identified, such as illegal immigrants or people affected by HIV/AIDS who do
not want to be stigmatized.
Snowball sampling is undertaken as follows:
• Key informants are identified on the basis of their knowledge of the emergency
and the people affected by it.
• The key informants are interviewed, and act as entry points by recommending
other people who can provide useful information.
• The next group of informants is interviewed and the process continues.
Snowball sampling incurs a high risk of bias. Each informant is likely to refer the
assessment team to people that he/she knows. These people may all belong to a
particular sub-group within a larger population. For example, if the assessment
team is looking for refugees, they may end up interviewing people from only a
particular region, or belonging to certain political parties or ethnic groups.
When snowball sampling is used, the assessment report should explain why it has
been used and describe the process for selecting which people to interview.
2.7.3.8 Convenience sampling
Convenience sampling is the least effective of the sampling approaches, but if time
and access are very short, such as during initial assessments, it may be the only
option. In convenience sampling, informants are chosen because they are
accessible. For example, if an initial assessment involves only one short visit to the
affected area, with little or no preparation, the EFSA team should talk to everyone
who is available; team members should apply judgement, such as by visiting health
103
PART
III
A sample of the “worst of the worst” is severely biased towards the most food-
insecure and is not at all representative of the five districts as a whole; no estimates
of numbers of affected households can be made.35
_____________
35. As an alternative, local key informants can be asked to stratify the districts according to whether they
are “most affected”, “moderately affected” or “least affected”. Within each of these strata, further substrata
can be defined. Households can be randomly selected within each substratum. If the population of each
substratum is known, the appropriate sample weights can be applied to make unbiased estimates of the
prevalence of food-insecure households.

clinics and other places where they can expect to find good quality information.
With convenience sampling, the risk of bias is very high. Generalizations to other
areas and population groups must therefore be made with caution.
2.7.4 Random sampling36
This section presents methods for in-depth assessments using random sampling.
2.7.4.1 Principles of random sampling
Random sampling is based on the principle that each unit in a population has
exactly the same chance37 of being selected as every other unit. In an EFSA, a unit
is usually a household when analysing food security, or an individual when
collecting anthropometric measurements.
In random sampling approaches, all selections within a stratum are made
randomly, including the selection of:
• locations within the geographical strata;
• households and individuals within the chosen locations.
Random sampling is the preferred method because, theoretically, it is the only one
that allows findings to be generalized to the entire sampling frame. It is used when
there is need for statistically representative data that can be extrapolated to the
wider population with a known degree of confidence, such as for estimating the
prevalence of malnutrition or food insecurity.
Random sampling requires the following:
• There must be sufficient information about the population, location and numbers
to construct the sampling frame from which a random sample is to be drawn, and
it must be possible to find each of the households selected for interview.
Population lists or maps showing the location of each residence must exist, or it
must be possible to construct them.
• It must be possible to assess every area, household and individual within the
sampling frame. There can be no physical or security constraints to access.
• There must be sufficient time and resources to visit the selected areas and
interview each selected household or individual, including travel time.
_____________
36. For more detailed guidance, see: Guidelines for Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability
Analysis (CFSVA), WFP Food Security Analysis Service, January 2009, and Thematic Guidelines on
Sampling, WFP Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Branch, December 2004.
37. The probability of being selected does not have to be equal for each unit, see: Guidelines for
Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA), WFP Food Security Analysis Service,
January 2009. It is enough that the probability is known and not zero, so that sample weights can be
constructed to calculate unbiased population estimates.

2.7.4.2 Geographical stratification
Normally an EFSA targets a specific area of a country, and a stratified two-stage
sampling approach is often used within that part of the country.
Depending on the expected homogeneity of the survey area, geographical zones
can be selected in either of two ways:
• If the characteristics of the population and the impact of the emergency are
expected to vary across the sampling frame, geographical zones are defined
according to such characteristics as the extent to which each is expected to be
affected by the crisis. The survey area is stratified, meaning that zones are
grouped according to characteristics that are important for the food security
situation. Random sampling of locations according to population size is then
carried out within each stratum. Results are representative of each stratum,
results from the various strata can be compared, and the number of households
to be targeted can be calculated for each zone separately. Such stratification is
designed to ensure that each stratum is as homogenous as possible and that
there are important differences among strata. A typical stratification could be the
agro-ecological or livelihood zones in a country, or the areas that have been
affected by a flood vs. those that have not. These approaches are illustrated in
the worked example in Section 2.7.4.6.
• If no particular food security pattern is expected across the survey area, the area
can be subdivided using the existing administrative divisions. If there are too
many of these, they can be regrouped. For example, in a survey covering eight
provinces of a country, three geographical strata could be maintained:
stratum A - covering the three western provinces; stratum B - the three central
provinces; and stratum C - the two eastern provinces.
Within a stratum, households and individuals can be chosen through either
two-stage sampling or simple random (direct) sampling.
105
PART
III
Two-stage stratified sampling (see Section 2.7.3)
This is the most common approach used in an EFSA. The sample is defined in stages:
1. Stratification: The geographical zones to be assessed are determined. In an EFSA
these are based on the expected extent of the emergency’s impact, and include both
directly affected and indirectly affected areas. For instance, for an assessment after the
passage of cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, the delta region was divided into a “severely
affected”, a “moderately affected” and a “mildly affected” zone. Geographical zones
may also correspond to those chosen in previous assessments, for the purpose of
comparison.
2. First stage: The locations to be visited within the chosen geographical zones are
selected. These might be villages, groups of villages, towns, neighbourhoods within
towns, livelihood zones, camps or any other unit appropriate to the local context and
Box 3.2: Two-stage and simple random sampling
(cont…)

2.7.4.3 Determining the sample size
The sample size is the number of surveyed units – generally households or
individuals – required to give the desired level of precision.
The sample size is calculated on the basis of the main characteristic of interest for
the assessment. For example, to estimate acute malnutrition among children under
5 years of age, the sample size is calculated on the basis of the expected
prevalence of wasting. The number of households to be visited is derived40 from the
average number of children under 5 per household.
This approach is problematic for food security assessments however, because no
single food security indicator can be used to estimate the size of the sample. If
baseline studies exist,41 the proportion of food-insecure households in the baseline
study can be adjusted according to the expected impact of the crisis.
type of crisis. The locations are selected with probability proportional to size (PPS).38
3. Second stage: Within each location, groups, households or individuals are randomly
chosen for interview, based on an existing or specially prepared list.
Two-stage sampling saves resources and time, as only selected locations are visited.
However, the sample size must be increased to compensate for the relative
homogeneity of households within locations.39
The number of locations to visit and the number of households or individuals to interview
within each location depend on the total sample size required. This is estimated
differently for random and purposive sampling (see Sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4). In all
cases, it is better to select a large number of locations and interview relatively few
households/individuals at each location than to select a small number of locations
and interview many households/individuals at each.
Simple random sampling
Households and individuals are selected from lists covering the entire area under study
– i.e. all the units within the sampling frame. This avoids the need to select locations from
which to draw the sample. This approach depends on having up-to-date population lists
and accurate data on the locations of households and individuals. It also depends on
access; if the population is widely dispersed, it may not be possible to reach all units
within the time available for the assessment.
Because of these restraints, EFSAs rarely use simple random sampling, unless the
sampling frame is small and geographically concentrated, such as in an internally
displaced person (IDP) camp.
_____________
38. Guidelines for Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA), WFP Food Security
Analysis Service, January 2009.
39. ibid.
40. For more details see: Emergency Nutrition Assessment: Guidelines for Field Workers, Save the Children, 2004.
41. For example, the CFSVAs carried out by WFP.
(…cont)

There are formulae and statistical software for calculating sample size once the
characteristics to be measured and the expected prevalence have been
determined.42
If there are no relevant data from which to estimate prevalence, the rule of thumb
explained in Box 3.3 can be used.
107
PART
III
_____________
42. Guidelines for Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA), WFP Food Security
Analysis Service, January 2009; and Thematic Guidelines on Sampling, WFP Vulnerability Analysis and
Mapping Branch, December 2004.
43. Assuming a design effect of 2.
44. This phenomenon is known as the “design effect”. In EFSAs it may require a doubling of the sample size.
Based on experience from many household food security surveys, a simple rule of thumb
is to consider a sample size of between 150 and 250 households for each reporting
domain. Ideally, the sample size should be towards the upper end of this scale, to
increase the reliability of the results and the validity of their extrapolation to other
households in the sampling frame. For example, in one reporting domain the sample size
is 200 households (ten households interviewed in each of twenty villages). If the sample
prevalence of food insecurity is 40 percent, it could be generalized, with 95 percent
confidence, that for the entire reporting domain the prevalence of food insecurity is
between 31 and 49 percent.43
The following points should be noted when using this rule of thumb:
1. The sample size applies to each geographical area, population group or other reporting
domain. For example, if prevalence of food insecurity is to be estimated for both IDPs
and residents, a sample of 150 to 250 households must be drawn from each. If food
insecurity is to be compared among districts, a sample of 150 to 250 households
should be drawn from each district.
2. If sampling is done in stages (see Box 3.2), the upper limit of 250 households must be
used to factor in the homogeneity of the households within each location sampled
during the first stage.44
3. Anthropometric measurements to estimate the prevalence of malnutrition are
sometimes combined with indicators to estimate the prevalence of food insecurity. In
this case, the size of the household sample is based on the sample size required
for estimating the prevalence of malnutrition with the required degree of
precision. Typically, the sample required for an anthropometric survey is larger than
the 150 to 250 households required for household food security analysis, and a sample
of up to 900 children may be recommended.
Box 3.3: Rule of thumb for estimating the sample size in a household survey
2.7.4.4 Selection of locations/clusters within geographical zones
When simple random sampling is used, there is no need to select locations, or
clusters, as the sample of households or individuals is drawn directly from the entire
sampling frame (see Box 3.2).

The first step is to determine the number of clusters to visit within each zone or
stratum. This depends on:
• the sample size: the total number of households or individuals to interview
(see Section 2.7.3.5);
• practical considerations, such as time, access, logistics and human resource
constraints.
As explained in Box 3.2, it is better to select a large number of clusters and
interview a relatively small number of households/individuals in each than to select
fewer clusters and hold more interviews in each. The rule of thumb explained in
Box 3.4 can be applied.
Based on experience of assessing household food security, a total of ten households
per cluster is usually sufficient. The main result of adding households in each cluster is
an increase in the design effect. The sample size can therefore be decided according to
the following, based on the level of precision desired:
• if the sample size is 150 households, at least 15 clusters should be selected, and at
least 10 households within each cluster;
• if the sample size is 250 households, at least 25 clusters should be selected, and at
least 10 households within each cluster.
Box 3.4: Rule of thumb for determining the number of clusters in a random sample
Clusters, often villages, within each zone are selected randomly with probability
according to their size (see Section 2.7.4.6). The communities or villages to visit are
determined according to the selected clusters. There may be more or less than
one cluster in a village.
In nutrition surveys of children under 5, it is common to use a 30 x 30 sample:
30 locations are selected, and anthropometric measurements of 30 children are
taken in each location. The total sample size is therefore 900 children. It is advisable
to fine-tune this sample size according to the expected prevalence of malnutrition.45
2.7.4.5 Selection of households or individuals within locations
In each location/cluster, simple random sampling of households or individuals is
carried out (see Box 3.2) in either of two ways:
• Simple random sampling is preferred and can be used when accurate
population lists exist or can be created and when each of the listed households
can be located and reached easily within the time available. All the households
are listed. Households are then selected at random, using a random number
table or by picking names out of a hat. This approach is feasible in small
_____________
45. The 30 x 30 sample is valid for an expected prevalence of 50 percent and a desired confidence
(at 95 percent) interval of +/- 5 percent, with a non-response rate of about 10 percent. For more guidance,
see: A Manual: Measuring and Interpreting Malnutrition and Mortality, CDC and WFP, 2005.

communities and camps with known boundaries.
• Systematic sampling is used when population lists do not exist, but each house
can be identified and reached within the time available. Households can be chosen
by walking through the location and visiting houses at pre-selected intervals, such
as every tenth house, or by spinning a pen and counting off the houses in the
direction indicated. Both of these approaches are illustrated in Example 3.5.
109
PART
III
Option 1: Houses are laid out in streets and each can be identified from either a map or
observation.
Example: A sample of 15 households is to be selected from a total of 186 houses in the
location:
• Calculate the sampling interval by dividing the total number of houses by the sample
size. In this case: 186/15 = 12.4 houses.
• Round the sampling interval up/down. In this case: down to 12 houses.
• Agree a starting point for the assessment, usually one end of a particular street.
• Choose a number between one and the sampling interval randomly. In this case:
between one and 12, say five.
• Count off five houses from the first identified. Interview this household.
• Count off the next 12 houses and undertake the second interview in the twelfth.
• Repeat the process at intervals of 12 houses until the entire location has been covered,
and the sample of 15 households has been completed.
• If there are fewer than 12 houses in the street, continue the count in the next street.
Clear instructions about the procedure should be given; for example, “at the end of the
street, turn right into the next street”.
The process is illustrated in the following diagram.
Example 3.5: Selection of households or individuals within locations
(cont…)

Option 2: Houses are not laid out in streets, but each can be identified by observation
on the ground.46
Example: A sample of three households is to be selected:
• Stand in the centre of the location.
• Spin a bottle on the ground or throw a pen in the air and watch where it lands.
• Walk in the direction indicated by the end of the bottle or pen as far as the edge of the
location, counting the houses passed. In this case, there are 15 houses.
• Calculate the sampling by dividing the number of houses by the sample size. In this
case: 15/3 = 5 houses.
• Choose a number between one and the sampling interval randomly. In this case,
between one and five. This is the first house to be visited.
• After this house, walk in the same direction and count another five houses. The fifth is
the second household to be visited. Carry out the same procedure to identify the third
household in the sample.
The process is illustrated in the following diagram.
_____________
46. Adapted from Guidelines for Emergency Assessment, IFRC, 2005.
Household 1
Household 2
Household 3
1
2
3
4
6
10
13
15
12
5
7
8
9
11
14
(…cont)

2.7.4.6 Example of random sampling
An EFSA is being carried out in a conflict-affected area. Some people have been
displaced to camps, while others remain in their homes. Two of the objectives of
the EFSA are to determine the rate of under-5 malnutrition and to determine the
levels of food insecurity among both displaced and resident populations.
In this case, the affected area is the basis for the sampling frame and it is large,
with villages and IDP camps widely dispersed. Although each of these locations
could be reached, there is insufficient time to do so. The dispersion means that
simple random sampling of the whole population cannot be carried out. Instead, a
two-stage sampling approach is chosen (see Box 3.2).
The following steps are undertaken:
1. The population is divided into two strata: resident population and IDPs.
2. For each stratum, a sample of localities is needed. For residents, localities
are defined as villages; for IDPs they are camps.
3. Because the rates of malnutrition are unknown and therefore cannot be used
to calculate the sample size more accurately, it is decided that a 30 x 30 cluster
sample will be drawn for each stratum, to obtain a sufficient number of
children for statistical analysis of the anthropometric data. Thus, 30 clusters
are identified (stage 1), and 30 units – households or individuals –
are selected in each cluster (stage 2). In each locality, 30 households will be
interviewed to estimate the level of household food insecurity, and 30 children
under 5 will be examined to determine their nutrition status.
4. The samples to be drawn are therefore:
• resident population: 900 households and 900 children under 5;
• IDP population: 900 households and 900 children under 5.
Children under 5 are selected from the households where food security
interviews take place. The sample size for each stratum is therefore
900 households.
5. A table similar to Table 3.4 is constructed and its columns filled in as
explained in the following steps. A separate table is constructed for each
stratum: residents and IDPs.
6. To identify where the clusters will be located, the names of the localities –
the villages and camps – are entered in the second column. To ensure a truly
random procedure, each location is assigned a random number and ranked
in the table according to that number.
111
PART
III

7. The best available population data for each of these localities are entered in
the third column. For the villages, this information may come from a
population census or district-level records. Information on camps is obtained
from the NGOs, United Nations agencies and/or government organizations
that manage them. Camp records should indicate the villages from which
IDPs come; this information may be used to modify the data on village
populations.
8. The best available data on the number of children under 5 in the population
are used. In this example, secondary data sources indicate that
approximately 20 percent of the total population is under 5. These data are
entered in the fourth column of the table.
Randomized
order
Geographical
unit
Estimated
total
population
Estimated
children
6-59 months
Cumulative
population
6-59 months
Attributed
numbers
Number
of clusters
1 Locality F 2500 500 500 1-500 1
2 Locality N 1000 200 700 501-700 1
3 Locality D 800 160 860 701-860 0
4 Locality A 3250 650 1510 861-1510 2
etc. etc. … … … 1511-… …
Total 50000 10000 10000
Table 3.4: Table for identifying clusters
9. The sampling interval is calculated by dividing the population of children
under 5 by the number of clusters. In this case, the population of under 5
children is 10,000 and the number of clusters is 30. The sampling interval is
therefore 10,000/30 = 333.
10. The location of the first cluster is determined by randomly selecting a
number within the sampling interval of one to 333. Say that the randomly
chosen number is 256, the first cluster is in locality 1 to which the number
range 1 to 500 has been attributed.
11. The remaining clusters are identified by adding the sampling interval
sequentially to the starting number until 30 clusters have been selected. In
this example:
• the first cluster is at 256, in locality 1
• the second cluster is at 256 + 333 = 589, in locality 2
• the third cluster is at 589 + 333 = 922, in locality 4
• the fourth cluster is at 922 + 333 = 1,255, in locality 4

The process continues until the required number of clusters have been
chosen. Note that the larger the population of the locality, the more clusters
it contains.
Therefore, locality 3, with a small population, has no cluster, while locality 4,
with a large population, has two clusters. Hence the approach is called
probability proportional to size (PPS).
12. Within each of the selected localities, households are identified by one of the
methods explained in Example 3.5.
2.8 Human resources
Human resource requirements for an EFSA depend on the assessment
methodology that has been chosen:
• For an in-depth large-scale household survey, enumerators, field managers, data
analysts, vehicles, drivers, translators, etc. will be needed.
• For an initial or rapid assessment based on purposive sampling and semi-structured
interviews, fewer staff will be needed, but the people carrying out the interviews
will have to be very well trained and experienced.
Human resources should be drawn from the country office and partners in the
country. If capacity is lacking at the national level, additional resources may be
requested from the regional bureau and Headquarters, or consultants may be
employed.
Human resource needs also depend on the assessment type. The following staff
may be required:
• Assessment managers and team leaders: See following paragraph on
management structure.
• Enumerators for questionnaire-based surveys: These individuals need to be
well-educated, resourceful and prepared to travel for the assessment period.
They do not need in-depth knowledge of food security, nutrition or assessment,
but should have at least a basic understanding of these issues and preferably
some experience of field-based research.
• Interviewers for semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions: These
people require a good understanding of food security and nutrition, and must be
experienced in interview techniques.
• One translator should be available for each member of the field team who does
not speak the local language. Ideally, translators should be hired at the same
time as the rest of the team, and should go through the same pre-assessment
training. Translators are sometimes hired in the field, in which case time should
be set aside to brief them on the assessment objectives and data collection
methods.
113
PART
III

sampling-method.pdf ....................

More Related Content

Similar to sampling-method.pdf .................... (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

sampling-method.pdf ....................