Finite Populations Sampling Strategies and Costs Control

  • Dinis PestanaEmail author
  • Maria Luísa Rocha
  • Fernando Sequeira
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 136)


Excellent data analysis methodologies fail to produce good results when using bad data. Bad data arise from inadequate strategies at the collecting stage, that are responsible for bias, or insufficient to produce accurate estimates of parameters of interest. Sampling is the statistical subfield that uses randomness as an ally in data gathering, the gold standard in ideal situations being to collect samples without replacement (thus each item bringing in new information, and as a consequence the estimator having reduced variance when compared to the corresponding sampling with replacement estimator). A quick overview of sampling strategies is presented, showing how they deal with cost control in non-ideal circumstances. Comments on the use of immoderately large samples, on the reuse of samples, and on computational sample augmentation, and other critical comments on misuse of statistics are registered, in the hope that these alerts improve the obtention of statistical findings, so often blurred because sophisticated statistical analysis is useless when it uses bad data.


Sampling Sample size Sampling strategies Accuracy 



This research has been supported by National Funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, project PEst-OE/MAT/UI0006/2011, and PTDC/FEDER.

The authors are grateful for very useful comments from Prof. Sneh Gulati, that helped them to improve the readability of the text, and to the comments and suggestions of the anonymous referees, very helpful in improving the presentation.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, M., Fienberg, S.E.: History, myth-making and statistics: a short story about the reapportionment of congress and the 1990 census. PS. Polit. Sci. Polit. 33, 783–794 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, D.N.: Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing.
  3. 3.
    Barnett, V.: Sample Surveys: Principles and Methods. Arnold, London (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belin, T.R., Rolph, J.E.: Can we reach consensus on census adjustment? Stat. Sci. 9, 486–508 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billard, L.: The census count: who counts? How do we count? When do we count? PS. Polit. Sci. Polit. 33, 767–774 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boswell, M.T., Gore, S.D., Lovison, G., Patil, G.P.: Annotated bibliography of composite sampling Part A: 1936–92. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 3, 1–50 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breiman, L.: The 1991 census adjustment: undercount or bad data? Stat. Sci. 9, 458–475 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brilhante, M.F., Mendonça, S., Pestana, D., Sequeira, F.: Using products and powers of products to test uniformity. In: Luzar-Stiffler, V., Jarec, I. Bekic, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the ITI 2010, 32nd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, IEEE CFP10498-PRT, pp. 509–514Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brunell, T.L.: Statistical sampling to estimate the U.S. population: the methodological and political debate over census 2000. PS. Polit. Sci. Polit. 33, 775–782 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorfman, R.: The detection of defective members in large populations. Ann. Math. Stat. 14, 436–440 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erdös, P., Rényi, A.: On a central limit theorem for samples from a finite population. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. 4, 49–61 (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fink, A. (ed.) The Survey Kit—1: The Survey Handbook. 2: How to Ask Survey Questions. 3: How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys. 4: How to Conduct Telephone Surveys 5: How to Conduct In-Person Interviews for Surveys. 6: How to Design Survey Studies. 7: How to Sample in Surveys. 8: How to Assess and Interpret Survey Psychometrics 9: How to Manage, Analyze, and Interpret Survey Data. 10: How to Report on Surveys. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glass, G.V.: Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of resealch. Educ. Res. 5, 3–8 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldacre, B.: Bad Science, Harper Perennial. Fourth Estate, London (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, M.M., Hurwitz, W.N.: On the theory of sampling from finite populations. Ann. Math. Stat. 14, 333–362 (1943)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen, M.M., Hurwitz, W.N., Madow, W.G.: Sample Survey Methods and Theory. Wiley, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horvitz, D.G., Thompson, D.J.: A Generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 663–685 (1952)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Improbable Research.
  19. 19.
    Ioannidis, J.P.A.: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
  20. 20.
    Kalton, G., Anderson, D.: Sampling rare populations. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 149, 65–82 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lynn, P.: Principles of sampling,In: Greenfield, T. (ed.) Research Methods for Postgraduates, pp. 185–194. Arnold, London (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marques, T.A., Buckland, S.T., Bispo, R., Howland, B.: Accounting for animal density gradients using independent information in distance sampling surveys. Stat. Methods Appl. (2013). doi: 10.1007/s10260-012-0223-2
  23. 23.
    Marsden, P., Wright, J. (eds.): Handbook of Survey Research. Emerald, United Kingdom (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martins, J.P., Santos, R., Felgueiras, M.: A Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Prevalence Rate Using Pooled Sample Tests Notas e Comunicações do CEAUL 27 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morrison, Ml, Block, W.M., Strickland, M.D., Collier, B.A.: Wildlife Study Design. Springer, New York (2008). Sample survey strategies 137–198 Sampling strategies: applications 199–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mosteller, F., Tukey, J.W.: Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Office of National Statistics: Census Coverage Survey Sample Balance Adjustment. 2011 Census: Methods and Quality Report. (2011)
  28. 28.
    Petersen, C.G.J.: The yearly immigration of young plaice into the Limfjord from the German Sea. Dan. Biol. St. 6, 5–84 (1895)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Randell, B.: The Colossus. In: Metropolis, N., Howlett, J., Rota, G.C. (eds.) A History of Computing in the Twentieth Century, pp. 47–92. Academic Press, New York (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ronzio, C.R.: Ambiguity and discord in U.S. Census data on the undercount, race/ethnicity and SES: responding to the challenge of complexity. Int. J. Crit. Stat. 1, 11–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Santos, R., Martins, J.P., Felgueiras, M.: Discrete Compound Tests and Dorfmans Methodology in the Presence of Misclassification. Notas e Comunicações do CEAUL 26 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Särndal, C.-E., Swensson, B., Wretman, J.: Model Assisted Survey Sampling. Springer, New York (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall III, W., Ott, R.L., Gerow, K.: Elementary Survey Sampling. Duxbury, Belmont (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seber, G.A.F., Salehi, M.M.: Adaptive Sampling Designs: Inference for Sparse and Clustered Populations. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Singh, S.: Advanced Sampling Theory with Applications, How Michael ‘Selected’ Amy. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thompson, S.K.: Sampling. Wiley, New York (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thompson, S.K., Seber, G.A.F.: Adaptive Sampling. Wiley, New York (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tukey, J.W.: Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wald, A.: Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann. Math. Stat. 16, 117–186 (1945)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dinis Pestana
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Luísa Rocha
    • 2
  • Fernando Sequeira
    • 3
  1. 1.CEAUL and DEIO–FCUL, Instituto de Investigação Científica Bento da Rocha CabralUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de Economa e Gestão and CEEAplAUniversidade dos AçoresAzoresPortugal
  3. 3.CEAUL and DEIO–FCULUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations