Técnica y Tamaño de la Muestra: Principal Fuente de Confiabilidad de los Datos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/revig1.5-47Keywords:
Sampling technique, Sample size, Validity, Reliability, Confidence intervalAbstract
The results and conclusions of a research project constitute key aspects in the structure of a scientific study, as they demonstrate the degree of fulfillment of the objectives set at the beginning of the project. The theoretical framework provides the conceptual basis for the study by integrating empirical evidence and contributions from the specialized scientific literature. However, the methodological section also requires a detailed description of the experimental design, the procedure followed, as well as the selection technique and sample size. The sampling technique determines the type of selection of study participants or experimental units, while the sample size must be statistically significant to ensure valid and reliable estimates of the population. Both elements are fundamental in social science research, as they directly influence the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the results. The objective of this paper is to present a literature review of the most commonly used sampling techniques and sample sizes, as well as the procedures for validation tests, reliability estimation, and confidence intervals.
Downloads
References
Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955–959.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Bonett, D. G. (2010). Varying coefficient alpha reliability: A simple and practical alternative to Cronbach's alpha. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109356478
Buckingham, A., & Saunders, P. (2004). The Survey Methods Workbook: From Design to Analysis. Wiley.
Campo-Arias, A., & Oviedo, H. C. (2008). Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Revista de Salud Pública, 10(5), 831-839. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642008000500015
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE Publications.
Charter, R. A. (1999). Sample size requirements for precise estimates of reliability, generalizability, and validity coefficients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21(4), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.21.4.559.889
Chaudhuri, A., & Pal, S. (2023). A comprehensive textbook on sample surveys. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1418-8
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Desu, M. M., & Raghavarao, D. (1990). Sample size methodology. Academic Press.
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Elfil, M., & Negida, A. (2017). Sampling Methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, PMC.
Frías-Navarro, D. (2021). Apuntes de consistencia interna de las puntuaciones de un instrumento de medida. Universidad de Valencia.
González Alonso, J., & Pazmiño Santacruz, M. (2015). Cálculo e interpretación del alfa de Cronbach para el caso de validación de la consistencia interna de un cuestionario, con dos posibles escalas tipo Likert. Revista Publicando, 2(1), 62-77.
González Palomo, I. G., Treviño Hernández, N. J., García León, A. M., & González Trejo, E. S. (2023). Probabilidad y estadística (1ª ed.). Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2017). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hambleton, R. K. (1980). Test score validity and standard setting. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Criterion-referenced measurement: The state of the art (pp. 80–123). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. SAGE Publications.
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6ª ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Hernández-Nieto, R. A. (2002). Contribuciones al análisis estadístico de la validez de contenido. Universidad de Los Andes.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2002). Foundations of Behavioral Research (4th ed.). Harcourt College Publishers.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
McCombes, S. (2023, 22 de junio). Sampling methods | Types, Techniques & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/ (Scribbr)
Namakforoosh, M. N. (2005). Metodología de la investigación (3ª ed.). Limusa.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Oviedo, H. C., & Campo-Arias, A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 8(1), 103-118. SciELO Colombia.
Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez y García-Cueto, E. (2013). Evidencias sobre la Validez de Contenido: Avances Teóricos y Métodos para su Estimación [Content Validity Evidences: Theoretical Advances and Esti-mation Methods]. Acción Psicológica, 10(2), x-xx. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ap.10.2.11820
Publications, ICI UMN. (n.d.). Advantages and Disadvantages of Non‐Probability Sampling. RTC/OM HCBS Measurement Education Modules. (publications.ici.umn.edu)
Roscoe (1975): Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Rositas Martínez, J. (2014). Los tamaños de las muestras en encuestas de las ciencias sociales y su repercusión en la generación del conocimiento. Innovaciones De Negocios, 11(22), 235–268. https://doi.org/10.29105/rinn11.22-4
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49–60.
Sireci, S. G., & Geisinger, K. F. (1992). Using subject-matter experts to assess content validity. Educational Assessment, 1(3), 277–290.
Sudman, S. (1976). Applied sampling. Academic Press.
Tucker, L. R. (1961). A suggested alternative formulation of the method of paired comparisons. Psychometrika, 26, 173–199.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Ingeniería y Gestión Industrial
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
