International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130

DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY OF SAMPLE SIZE IN

MANAGEMENT SURVEY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

By

HASHIM, Yusuf Alhaji

Email: yusufalhajihashim@gmail.com
Phone: 234803-660-351-5

Department of Business Administration, College of Business and

Management Studies (CBMS), Kaduna Polytechnic, Kaduna-Nigeria.

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130

Abstract
This paper describes the procedure for determining sufficient sample size for both continuous
and categorical data. Tables for determining the sufficient sample size were given as adapted
from Krejcie and Morgan (1970) and Bartlett, et al., (2001). The main objective of this study is
to explore the procedures for determining a sufficient sample size for management survey
research activities. The study recommends that researchers should endeavour to use sufficient
sample size in conducting survey studies to minimize errors in inference back to the
population.

Introduction
1

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Management involves the effective and efficient utilization both human and material resources in
achieving organizational goals and objectives. In the pursuance of organizational goals and
objectives, management encounters problems in terms of resources constraints, dynamism in the
operating environment. Therefore, most of the problems that management encounters are found
in all functional areas: finance, human resources, marketing, production, research and
development.

In order to solve managerial problems, managers engage in research. The purpose of research is
to collect data that will help management solve problem that have been identified and defined.
Data can be collected in a variety of ways. One of the most common methods is through the use
of surveys. Surveys can be done by using a variety of methods. The most common methods are
the telephone survey, the mailed questionnaire survey, personal interview, surveying records, and
direct observation (Bluman, 2004).
Management research reports require reliable forms of evidence from which to draw robust
conclusions. It is usually not cost effective or practicable to collect and examine all the data that
might be available. Instead it is often necessary to draw a sample of information from the whole
population to enable the detailed examination required to take place. Samples can be drawn for
several reasons: for example to draw inferences across the entire population; or to draw
illustrative examples of certain types of behavior. Bluman (2004) argues that in conducting the
research, management use samples to collect data and information about a particular variable
from a large population. Using samples saves time and money and, some cases enable the
researcher to get more detailed information about a particular subject. A simple survey of
published manuscripts reveals numerous errors and questionable approaches to sample size
2

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
selection, and serves as proof that improvement is needed. Many researchers could benefit from
a real-life primer on the tools needed to properly conduct research, including, but not limited to,
sample size selection.
Landman (1998) points out that, when a test sample does not truly represent the population from
which it is drawn, the test sample is considered a bias sample. It then becomes impossible to
predict the population. The argument by Landman (1998) raises the question: How large a
sample size is required to infer research findings back to the population? This question is at the
heart of the problem of this study.
The main aim of the study is to explore the processes of determining a sufficient sample size for
management survey research activities. The specific objectives of the study are:
i)

describe sufficient sample size required given a finite population,

ii)

describe maximum sampling error for samples of varying sizes,

Sample Design
Bluman (2004) argues samples can not be selected in a haphazard way because the information
obtained might be biased. To obtained samples that are unbiased (i.e. give each subject of the
population an equally likely chance of being selected) management use four basic methods of
sampling: random, systematic, stratified, and cluster sampling.
Sample design covers the method of selection, the sample structure and plans for analyzing and
interpreting the results. Sample designs can vary from simple to complex and depend on the type
of information required and the way the sample is selected. The design will impact upon the size
of the sample and the way in which analysis is carried out. In simple terms the tighter the
required precision and the more complex the design, the larger the sample size.

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
The design may make use of the characteristics of the population, but it does not have to be
proportionally representative (VFM Studies). It may be necessary to draw a larger sample than
would be expected from some parts of the population; for example, to select more from a
minority grouping to ensure that we get sufficient data for analysis on such groups.
Many designs are built around random selection. This permits justifiable inference from the
sample to the population, at quantified levels of precision. Given due regard to other aspects of
design, random selection guards against bias in a way that selecting by judgment or convenience
cannot. Sampling can provide a valid, defensible methodology but it is important to match the
type of sample needed to the type of analysis required (VFM Studied). The first step in good
sample design is to ensure that the specification of the target population is as clear and complete
as possible to ensure that all elements within the population are represented. The target
population is sampled using a sampling frame. Often the units in the population can be identified
by existing information; for example, pay-rolls, company lists, government registers and so on. A
sampling frame could also be geographical; for example postcodes.

Determining Sample Size

A common goal of survey research is to collect data representative of a population. The
researcher uses information gathered from the survey to generalize findings from a drawn sample
back to a population, within the limits of random error. However, when critiquing business
education research, Wunsch (1986:31) stated that two of the most consistent flaws included (1)
disregard for sampling error when determining sample size, and (2) disregard for response and
nonresponse bias. Within a quantitative survey design, determining sample size and dealing
with nonresponse bias is essential. One of the real advantages of quantitative methods is their

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
ability to use smaller groups of people to make inferences about larger groups that would be
prohibitively expensive to study (Holton & Burnett, 1997:71).

Standard textbook authors and researchers offer tested methods that allow studies to take full
advantage of statistical measurements, which in turn give researchers the upper hand in
determining the correct sample size. Sample size is one of the four inter-related features of a
study design that can influence the detection of significant differences, relationships or
interactions (Peers, 1996). Generally, these survey designs try to minimize both alpha error
(finding a difference that does not actually exist in the population) and beta error (failing to find
a difference that actually exists in the population) (Peers, 1996).

Foundations for Sample Size Determination

Primary Variables off Measurement
The researcher must make decisions as to which variables will be incorporated into formula
calculations. For example, if the researcher plans to use a seven-point scale to measure a
continuous variable, e.g., job satisfaction, and also plans to determine if the respondents differ by
certain categorical variables, e.g., gender, educational level, and others, which variable(s) should
be used as the basis for sample size? This is important because the use of gender as the primary
variable will result in a substantially larger sample size than if one used the seven-point scale as
the primary variable of measure. Cochran (1977:81) addressed this issue by stating that One
method of determining sample size is to specify margins of error for the items that are regarded
as most vital to the survey. An estimation of the sample size needed is first made separately for
each of these important items. When these calculations are completed, researchers will have a

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
range of ns, usually ranging from smaller ns for scaled, continuous variables, to larger ns for
dichotomous or categorical variables.
The researcher should make sampling decisions based on these data. If the ns for the variables
of interest are relatively close, the researcher can simply use the largest n as the sample size and
be confident that the sample size will provide the desired results. More commonly, there is a
sufficient variation among the ns so that we are reluctant to choose the largest, either from
budgetary considerations or because this will give an over-all standard of precision substantially
higher than originally contemplated. In this event, the desired standard of precision may be
relaxed for certain of the items, in order to permit the use of a smaller value of n. The researcher
may also decide to use this information in deciding whether to keep all of the variables identified
in the study. In some cases, the ns are so discordant that certain of them must be dropped from
the inquiry; . . . (Cochran, 1977:81).
Error Estimation
Cochrans (1977) formula uses two key factors: (1) the risk the researcher is willing to accept in
the study, commonly called the margin of error, or the error the researcher is willing to accept,
and (2) the alpha level, the level of acceptable risk the researcher is willing to accept that the true
margin of error exceeds the acceptable margin of error; i.e., the probability that differences
revealed by statistical analyses really do not exist; also known as Type I error. Another type of
error Type II error, also known as beta error. Type II error occurs when statistical procedures
result in a judgment of no significant differences when these differences do indeed exist.

Alpha Level

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
The alpha level used in determining sample size in most educational research studies is either .05
or .01 (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996). In Cochrans formula, the alpha level is incorporated
into the formula by utilizing the t-value for the alpha level selected (e.g., t-value for alpha level
of .05 is 1.96 for sample sizes above 120). Researchers should ensure they use the correct t-value
when their research involves smaller populations, e.g., t-value for alpha of .05 and a population
of 60 is 2.00. In general, an alpha level of .05 is acceptable for most research. An alpha level of .
10 or lower may be used if the researcher is more interested in identifying marginal relationships,
differences or other statistical phenomena as a precursor to further studies. An alpha level of .01
may be used in those cases where decisions based on the research are critical and errors may
cause substantial financial or personal harm, e.g., major programmatic changes (Bartlett, Kotrlik,
and Higgins, 2001).
Acceptable Margin of Error
The general rule relative to acceptable margins of error in educational and social research is as
follows: For categorical data, 5% margin of error is acceptable, and, for continuous data, 3%
margin of error is acceptable (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). For example, a 3% margin of error
would result in the researcher being confident that the true mean of a seven point scale is within
.21 (.03 times seven points on the scale) of the mean calculated from the research sample.
For a dichotomous variable, a 5% margin of error would result in the researcher being confident
that the proportion of respondents who were male was within 5% of the proportion calculated
from the research sample. Researchers may increase these values when a higher margin of error
is acceptable or may decrease these values when a higher degree of precision is needed (Bartlett,
et al., 2001).
Variance Estimation
7

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
A critical component of sample size formulas is the estimation of variance in the primary
variables of interest in the study. The researcher does not have direct control over variance and
must incorporate variance estimates into research design. Cochran (1977) listed four ways of
estimating population variances for sample size determinations: (1) take the sample in two steps,
and use the results of the first step to determine how many additional responses are needed to
attain an appropriate sample size based on the variance observed in the first step data; (2) use
pilot study results; (3) use data from previous studies of the same or a similar population; or (4)
estimate or guess the structure of the population assisted by some logical mathematical results.

In many educational and social research studies, it is not feasible to use any of the first three
ways and the researcher must estimate variance using the fourth method (Bartlett, 2001). A
researcher typically needs to estimate the variance of scaled and categorical variables. To
estimate the variance of a scaled variable, one must determine the inclusive range of the scale,
and then divide by the number of standard deviations that would include all possible values in
the range, and then square this number.

When estimating the variance of a dichotomous (proportional) variable such as gender, Krejcie
and Morgan (1970) recommended that researchers should use .50 as an estimate of the
population proportion. This proportion will result in the maximization of variance, which will
also produce the maximum sample size. This proportion can be used to estimate variance in the
population. For example, squaring .50 will result in a population variance estimate of .25 for a
dichotomous variable.

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130

Basic Sample Size Determination

Continuous Data
Before proceeding with sample size calculations, assuming continuous data, the researcher
should determine if a categorical variable will play a primary role in data analysis. If so, the
categorical sample size formulas should be used. If this is not the case, the sample size formulas
for continuous data described in this section are appropriate. Cochrans (1977) sample size
formula for continuous data is:
(t)2 * (s) 2
no= ----------------(d)2
Where t = value for selected alpha level in each tail (the alpha level of .05 indicates the level of
risk the researcher is willing to take that true margin of error may exceed the
acceptable margin of error.)
Where s = estimate of standard deviation in the population
Where d = acceptable margin of error for mean being estimate (number of points on primary
scale * acceptable margin of error)

Cochrans (1977) correction formula should be used to calculate the final sample size:
no
n1 = -----------------------------(1 + no / P)
Where P = population size
Where n0 = required return sample size according to Cochrans formula
Where n1 = required return sample size because sample exceed required % of population.
9

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130

These procedures result in the minimum returned sample size.

However, since many educational and social research studies often use data collection methods
such as surveys and other voluntary participation methods, the response rates are typically well
below 100%. Salkind (1997:107) recommended oversampling when he stated that If you are
mailing out surveys or questionnaires, . . . . count on increasing your sample size by 40%-50% to
account for lost mail and uncooperative subjects.

However, many researchers criticize the use of over-sampling to ensure that this minimum
sample size is achieved and suggestions on how to secure the minimal sample size are scarce.
Fink (1995) argues that Oversampling can add costs to the survey and is often necessary.
If the researcher decides to use oversampling, Bartlett, et al., (2001) suggest that four methods
may be used to determine the anticipated response rate: (1) take the sample in two steps, and use
the results of the first step to estimate how many additional responses may be expected from the
second step; (2) use pilot study results; (3) use responses rates from previous studies of the same
or a similar population; or (4) estimate the response rate.

Estimating response rates is not an exact science. A researcher may be able to consult other
researchers or review the research literature in similar fields to determine the response rates that
have been achieved with similar and, if necessary, dissimilar populations (Bartlett, et al., 2001).

Categorical Data
10

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
The sample size formulas and procedures used for categorical data are very similar to continuous
data, but some variations do exist. Cochrans (1977) sample size formula for categorical data is:
(t)2 * (p)(q)
no= --------------------(d)2
Where t = value for selected alpha level in each tail (the alpha level indicates the level of risk the
researcher is willing to take that true margin of error may exceed the acceptable
margin of error).
Where (p)(q) = estimate of variance (maximum possible proportion * 1- maximum possible
proportion produces maximum possible sample size).
Where d = acceptable margin of error for proportion being estimated (error researcher is willing
to except).

Cochrans (1977) correction formula should be used to calculate the final sample size. These
calculations are as follows:

no
n1= -----------------------------(1 + no / Population)
Where no = required return sample size according to Cochrans formula
Where n1 = required return sample size because sample > required % of population.
(These procedures result in a minimum returned sample size).

Methodology
11

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
The paper adopts the descriptive research design in explaining the processes and requirements of
determining sufficient sample size for management survey research activities. The choice of the
method is informed by the fact that we intend to primarily describe the sufficient sample sizes
required for management survey research activities. The emphasis is on describing rather than
judge or interprets. Klopper (1990) argues that researchers use descriptive research design with
the aim of recording in the form of a written report of that which has been perceived. The paper
relies purely on secondary data collected from e-books, online journal articles and textbooks.

Determining Sufficiency of Sample Size

When we sample, we are drawing a subgroup of cases from some population of possible cases. The
sample will deviate from the true nature of the population by a certain amount due ton chance variations
of drawing few cases from many possible cases. This is called sampling error (Isaac & Michael, 1995).
The issue of determining sample size arises with regard to the investigators wish to assure that the
sample statistic (usually the sample mean) is as close to, or within a specified distance from, the true
statistic (mean) of the entire population under review (Hill, 1998).

A crude method of checking the sufficiency of data is describe as split-half analysis of consistency
(Martin & Bateson, 1986). Here the data is divided randomly into two halves which are then analysed
separately. If both sets of data clearly generate the same conclusions, then sufficient data is claimed to
have been collected. If the two conclusions differ, then more data is required. True split half analysis
involves calculating the correlation between the two data sets. If the correlation coefficient is sufficiently
high then the data can be said to be reliable (Hill, 1998). Martin and Bateson (1986) advocate a
correlation coefficient of greater than 0.7.

12

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Alreck and Settle (1995) dispute the logic that sample size is necessarily dependant on population size.
They provide their analogy as follows: suppose you were warming a bowl of soup and wished to know if
it was hot enough to serve. You would probably taste a spoonful. A sample size of one spoonful. Now
suppose you increased the population of soup, and you were heating a large urn of soup for a large crowd.
The supposed population of soup has increased, but you still only require a sample size of one spoonful to
determine whether the soup is hot enough to serve.

A formula for determining sample size can be derived provided the investigator is prepared to specify
how much error is acceptable and how much confidence is required (Roscoe, 1975; and Alreck & Settle,
1995 in Hill, 1998).

A significance level of 5% has been established as a generally acceptable level of confidence in most
behavioral sciences (Hill, 1998). Roscoe (1975) seems to use 10% as a rule thumb acceptable level, while
Wersberg and Bowen (1977) cite 3% and 4% as the acceptable level in survey research for forecasting
election results. Further, Wersberg and Bowen (1977: 41) provide a table of maximum sampling error
related to sample size for simple randomly selected samples. The table insinuates that if you are prepared
to accept an error level of 5% in survey, then you require a sample size of 400 observations. If 10% is
acceptable then a sample of 100 is acceptable, provided the sampling procedure is simple random.

Table 1: Maximum sampling error for samples of varying sizes

Sample
size

Error

2,000

2.2

1,500

2.6

1000

3.2

750

3.6

700

3.8

13

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
600

4.1

500

4.5

400

5.0

300

5.8

200

7.2

100

10.3

Source: Wersberg and Bowen (1977:41) in Hill (1998).

Krejcie and Morgan (1970) have produced a table for determining required sample size given a
finite population. The table is applicable to any population of a defined (finite) size.

14

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Table 2: Required sample size, given a finite population
N-----n

N-----n

N-----n

N-----n

N-----n

10-----10

100-----80

280-----162

800-----260

2800-----338

15-----14

110-----86

290-----165

850-----265

3000-----341

20-----19

120-----92

300-----169

900-----269

3500-----346

25-----24

130-----97

320-----175

950-----274

4000-----351

30-----28

140-----103

340-----181

1000-----278

4500-----354

35-----32

150-----108

360-----186

1100-----285

5000-----357

40-----36

160-----113

380-----191

1200-----291

6000-----361

45-----40

170-----118

400-----196

1300-----297

7000-----364

50-----44

180-----123

420-----201

1400-----302

8000-----367

55-----48

190-----127

440-----205

1500-----306

9000-----368

60-----52

200-----132

460-----210

1600-----310

10000-----370

65-----56

210-----136

480-----214

1700-----313

15000-----375

70-----59

220-----140

500-----217

1800-----317

20000-----377

75-----63

230-----144

550-----226

1900-----320

30000-----379

80-----66

240-----148

600-----234

2000-----322

40000-----380

85-----70

250-----152

650-----242

2200-----327

50000-----381

90-----73

260-----155

700-----248

2400-----331

75000-----382

95-----76

270-----159

750-----254

2600-----335

100000-----384

Source: Krejcie and Morgan (1970:608) in Hill (1998).

Where N= Population size, and n= sample size required.

Krejcie and Morgan (1970) state that, using the above calculation, as the population increases the
sample size increases at a diminishing rate and remains, eventually constant at slightly more than
380 cases.

15

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
According to Gay and Diehl (1992), generally the number of respondents acceptable for a study
depends on the type research involved- descriptive, correlational or experimental. For descriptive
research the sample should be 10% of population. But if the population is small then 20% may
be required. In correlational research at least 30 subjects are required to establish a relationship.
Hill (1998) suggests 30 subjects per group as the minimum for experimental research. Isaac and
Michael (1995) provide conditions where research with large samples is essential and also where
small samples are justifiable. Accordingly Isaac and Michael (1995) opined that large samples
are essential:
a) When a large number of uncontrolled variables are interacting unpredictably and it
is desirable to minimize their separate effects; to mix the effects randomly and
hence cancel out imbalances.
b) When the total sample is to be sub-divided into several sub-samples to be
compared with one another.
c) When the parent population consists of a wide range of variables and
characteristics, and there is a risk therefore of missing or misrepresenting those
differences.
d) When differences in the results are expected to be small.
Isaac and Michael (1995) provide conditions where research with small sample sizes is
justifiable as:
a) In cases of small sample economy. That is when it not economically feasible to
collect a large sample.
16

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
b) When computer monitoring. This may take two forms: (i) Where the input of huge
amounts of data may itself introduce a source of error- namely, key punch
mistakes. (ii) Where, as an additional check on reliability of the computer program
a small sample is selected from the main data and analysed by hand. The purpose
of this is to compare the small data and the large sample data for similar results.
c) In cases of exploratory research and pilot studies. Sample sizes of 10 to 30 are
sufficient in these cases.
d) When the research involves in-depth case study. That is, when the study requires
methodology such as interview and where enormous amount of qualitative data are
forthcoming from each individual respondent.
Bartlett, et al., (2001) developed another table for determining minimum returned sample size for
a Given Population Size for Continuous and categorical Data.

Table 3: Table for determining minimum returned sample size for a Given Population Size for
Continuous and categorical Data
Sample size

17

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Categorical data

Continuous data

(margin of error=.05)

(margin of error=.03)
Population size

Alpha = .10, alpha = .05, alpha = .01, alpha = .50, alpha = .50, alpha =.05,
t=1.65
t= 1.96
t= 2.58
t=1.65
t= 1.96
t=2.58

100

46

55

68

74

80

87

200

59

75

102

116

132

154

300

65

85

123

143

169

207

400

69

92

137

162

196

250

500

72

96

147

176

218

286

600

73

100

155

187

235

316

700

75

102

161

196

249

341

800

76

104

166

203

260

363

900

76

105

170

209

270

382

1,000

77

106

173

213

278

399

1,500

79

110

183

230

306

461

2,000

83

112

189

239

232

499

4,000

83

119

198

254

351

570

6,000

83

119

209

259

362

598

8,000

83

119

209

262

367

613

10,000

83

119

209

264

370

623

Source: Bartlett, Kotrlik, and Higgins (2001).

Accordingly, researchers may use this table if the margin of error shown is appropriate for their
study, however, the appropriate sample size must be calculated if these error rates are not
appropriate (Bartlett, et al., 2001).
18

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130

Conclusions
Although it is not unusual for researchers to have different opinions as to how sample size should
be calculated, the procedures used in the process should always be reported, allowing the reader
to make his or her own judgments as to whether they accept the researchers assumptions and
procedures. In general, a researcher should use standard factors in determining the sample size.
Using adequate sample along with high quality data collection efforts will results in more
reliable, valid, and generalizable results, it could also result in time saving and other resources
(Bartlett, et al., 2001).
From the foregoing, it appears that determining sample size is not a cut-and-dried procedure.
Also the nature of methodology used is a major consideration in selecting sample size (Hill,
1998). Due to problems arising from getting enough respondents and generalization of findings,
Gay and Diehl (1992) opined that there is a great deal in the replication of findings. Hill (1998)
suggests replication of findings to mean: (i) increase the subject pool, and (ii) create greater
validity for generalizability.

Recommendation
Having describe the procedures involved in determining sufficient sample size for management
survey research activities, the following recommendations are proffer:
19

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Researchers should endeavour to use sufficient sample size in conducting survey research to
minimize errors in inference back to the population;
Sample design should be built around the method of sample selection; and
When estimating the variance of a dichotomous (proportional) variable such as gender,
researchers should use .50 as an estimate of the population proportion (Krejcie and Morgan,
1970).

References
Alreck, P.L. and Settle, R.B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook. (2nd.). in Hill, R. (1998).
What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research. Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21 st Century. Available at:
http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., and Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining
Appropriate sample Size in Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, 19(1), pp 43-50 (Spring).
20

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Bluman, A.G. (2004). Elementary Statistics: a step by step approach. (5th.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. (3rd.). In Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., and Higgins,
C.C. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate sample Size in
Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1),
pp 43-50 (Spring).
Fink, A. (1995). The Survey Handbook. In Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., and Higgins, C.C. (2001).
Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate sample Size in Survey Research.
Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), pp 43-50 (Spring).
Gay, L.R. and Diehl, P.L. (1992). Research Methods for Business and Management. In Hill, R.
(1998). What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research? Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Available at:
http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Hill, R. (1998). What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research? Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Available at:
http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Isaac, S. and Micheal, W.B. (1995). Handbook in Research and Evaluation. In Hill, R. (1998).
What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research? Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Available at:
http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. In
Hill, R. (1998). What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research?
Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21 st Century.
Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. (1986). Measuring Behaviour: An introductory Guide. in Hill, R.
(1998). What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research? Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Available at:
http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Peer, I. (1996). Statistical Analysis for Education and Psychology Researchers. in Bartlett, J.E.,
Kotrlik, J.W., and Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining
Appropriate sample Size in Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, 19(1), pp 43-50 (Spring).
Roscoe, J.T. (1975). Fundamentals Research Statistics for Behavioural Sciences. (2nd.). in Hill,
R. (1998). What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research? Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Available at:
http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl
Salkind, N.J. (1997). Exploring Research. (3rd.). In Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., and Higgins,
C.C. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate sample Size in
21

International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1),

pp: 119-130
Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1),
pp 43-50 (Spring).
VFM Studies. (n.d.). A Practical Guide to Sampling. Statistical and Technical Team: National
Audit Office.
Weisberg, H.F. and Bowen, B.D. (1977). An introduction to Survey Research and Data Analysis.
In Hill, R. (1998). What Sample Size is Enough in Internet Survey Research?
Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An electronic Journal for the 21 st Century.
Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.hmtl

22