This study was using purposive sampling vs the study used purposive sampling

Both phrases are correct, but they are used in different contexts. 'This study was using purposive sampling' is in the past continuous tense and emphasizes the ongoing nature of the sampling method during the study. 'The study used purposive sampling' is in the simple past tense and focuses on the action of using that sampling method at a specific point in time.

Last updated: March 25, 2024 • 740 views

This study was using purposive sampling

This phrase is correct and emphasizes the ongoing nature of the sampling method during the study.

This phrase is used to describe a study that employed purposive sampling as an ongoing process or method during the study period.

Show examples from the web [+]

This study was primarily designed to assess pharmacokinetics in children.
This study was conducted over a 6-month randomised comparison period followed by 18 months extension where all patients received Zavesca monotherapy.
The highest no- effect dose for this study was 20 mg/ kg/ day.
Long-term use of efavirenz in this study was not associated with any new safety concerns.
The population included in this study was moderately pretreated.
This study was stopped following the suspension of marketing and distribution of cerivastatin.
This study was not available to CMD(v).
The primary efficacy endpoint of this study was Objective Response Rate (ORR).
One result of this study was that violent images have an undeniable influence on young people.
This study was eight years old, and documentation was available.
The call for tender for this study was published in January 2002.
This study was conducted by Alliance ELSA.
Therefore, this study was prematurely stopped after 60 weeks.
This study was conducted in 705 anaemic patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving multi-cycle chemotherapy.
This study was sent to Belgium on 9 December 2011.
This study was primarily designed as a pharmacokinetic study (see section 5.2).
The primary efficacy parameter for this study was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed clinical influenza in the households.
Steady-state trough plasma concentrations at a 300 mg dose in current smokers in this study was 1.22 µg/mL (n=17).
It is possible that the decreased bioavailability in this study was due to delayed transit of ribavirin or modified pH.
This study was a 726-center, 27-country, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study in 10,948 patients presenting with UA or NQMI.

Alternatives:

this study used purposive sampling
this study employed purposive sampling

the study used purposive sampling

This phrase is correct and focuses on the action of using purposive sampling at a specific point in time during the study.

This phrase is used to state that a study employed purposive sampling as a specific method at a particular time.

Show examples from the web [+]

The majority of the studies used 50 mg/ kg/ day in neonates in the treatment of infections.
GPRD database The study used a population based cohort of subjects who were newly diagnosed with hyperlipidaemia and/ or who received a prescription for a hypolipidaemic agent.
The studies used by the Commission suggest that 20 % to 40 % of people who recover from polio go on to develop post-polio syndrome (PPS).
The studies used to support Velosulin are those that have been used to support Actrapid, another insulin approved in the European Union (EU).
Most of the studies used Equilis Prequenza Te, a vaccine that protects against the three equine influenza strains (the same as Equilis Prequenza), as well as tetanus.
These studies used pioglitazone and sulphonylureas given as separate tablets.
EFSA systematically provides the references to the independent studies used in the preparation of its scientific opinions on GMOs.
Subject: EFSA guidelines on studies used in pesticide evaluation
All of these studies used the same population of patients to varying degrees and as such cannot be considered as independent.
Two studies used the active substances taken as separate medicines, while the third used a combination tablet for the once-daily dose.
Two of these studies used haloperidol and lithium (another antipsychotic medicine) as comparators and continued for a further nine weeks to look at the maintenance of the effect of the medicines.
These studies used the recommended dose of 400 mg twice daily in combination with optimised background therapy (OBT) in 507 patients, in comparison to 282 patients taking placebo in combination with OBT.
Analysis includes studies involving BM transplant during this period; some studies used GM-CSF b Analysis includes patients receiving BM transplant during this period
for risk assessment purposes the acute toxicity studies used should, where available, include at least two doses (e.g. one very high dose and one corresponding to the expected exposure under practical conditions).
Description of pilot studies used in the experimental design of the follow-up studies, if applicable. Pilot study supporting data should be submitted;
The study lasted 12 months, and measured the children's height at the beginning and the end of the study, and the speed of growth during the study.
The main measures in the studies in children were height at the end of the study, and the speed of growth during the study.
The study lasted nine months, and measured the height at the beginning and the end of the study, and the speed of growth during the study.
Amendments to the study plan should be justified and approved by dated signature of the study director and maintained with the study plan.
The summaries of the studies conducted should allow an assessment of the adequacy of the study and whether the study has been conducted according to an acceptable protocol.

Alternatives:

the study employed purposive sampling
the study utilized purposive sampling

What Our Customers Are Saying

Our customers love us! We have an average rating of 4.79 stars based on 283,125 votes.
Also check out our 2,100+ reviews on TrustPilot (4.9).

"Thank you!"
Sachi Nakama July 2024
"I have literally been through chat, PI, claude, bard and bing and I got conflicting answers! Thank you! Human intelligence reigns!"
Retha July 2024
"Faster than AI"
CYNTHIA December 2023
"This was very helpful and I personally think this site is the best."
Kaden October 2023
"It was extremely thorough and very helpful!"
imperialelisa October 2023
"7 years without any disappointment. Always 100% satisfied. You guys are the best in the world at what you do. Thank you so much :)"
Zubair Alam October 2023
"In a world of text messages and online communication, this is great to have as a live tool. Thank you."
Selena October 2023
"Without textranch I would be stuck!"
宏祐 October 2023
"Accuracy and fast response. Personal comments from editor. Thank you."
Clh September 2023
"I wasn't aware of this service, it's fascinating and more reliable than standard IA tools available on the internet"
Arturo September 2023
"The fact that you can get reliable fast feedback on your texts."
Vinicius Antonio August 2023
"you guys are better than grammarly i'm being honest here"
ordinary July 2023
"OMG! This is really good than any other text correction tools I've used so far. Highly recommend this."
Vehan July 2023
"Very fast and accurate. thank you."
mojtaba July 2023
"I love this app because it's help to writing skills all of students ♥️"
Tarisini July 2023
"This was exactly the mistake I was looking for, the wording dind´t sound right at first. Better than grammarly!"
Ente July 2023
"The immediate help that I received was reassuring and very satisfactory. Thanks."
priiiyanshuu July 2023
"this helps A LOT for my studies."
kathnunez02 June 2023
"Woow!! I would never have expected such precision! Thank you soooo much!!"
Berta June 2023
"Real Time Editor and not AI. Many Thanks."
Priya June 2023
"The very first thing excites me about Textranch is how much your editors care."
sepideh June 2023
"The fact that texts are checked by human editors rather than by AI, etc. I appreciate this!"
Анна June 2023
"Feel welcome, immediate response, high quality feedback"
martin.roy June 2023
"This is the best app that I have ever seen"
Burulai May 2023

This study was using purposive sampling vs the study used purposive sampling