Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the developmental sciences is based largely on samples of convenience rather than samples drawn at random from the population. The important question of whether results observed in samples of convenience generalise to the larger population has not been studied directly. Because of demographic growth in the proportion of older adults in the population and increases in diversity across the lifespan, it is especially important to address this issue in aging adults. We compared the performance of older adults (65–100 years) on demographic and psychological measures for a random sample of community dwelling adults and two samples of convenience. Significant differences were observed on less than half the variables. When differences were present, participants in the convenience samples were advantaged compared to participants from the random sample. Differences were larger in some domains than others but remained small to moderate in magnitude. There were minimal differences in between-person variability and patterns of correlations among variables between the convenience and random samples. Results indicate the need for additional studies contrasting random and convenience samples to explore the parameters of external validity in psychological aging research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it