In plain words
Simple random sampling is the baseline, and a full census has no sampling error. Stratifying helps when the groups differ, and systematic sampling can be far worse if the list has a period.
Simple random sampling
For SRSWOR of size n from N units with population variance :
Var(ȳ — the factor (1 − n/N) is the finite population correction. With replacement there is no fpc, so SRSWOR is more efficient.
ȳ is unbiased for the population mean under both schemes.
Worked: population {2, 4, 6}, samples of size 2 without replacement. The three samples have means 3, 4, 5 each with probability ⅓: .
Stratified sampling
Var(ȳ with .
| Allocation | ∝ | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Proportional | always at least as good as SRS | |
| Neyman/optimum | minimises variance for fixed n | |
| Optimum with cost | minimises variance for fixed cost |
Efficiency order: Neyman ≤ proportional ≤ SRS (in variance). Stratification helps most when strata are internally homogeneous and mutually different.
Systematic sampling
Pick every k-th unit (k = N/n). Simple to run; efficient for a linear trend, but disastrous if the population has period k. Variance cannot be estimated unbiasedly from a single systematic sample.
Ratio and regression estimators
Ratio estimator ȳ_R = (ȳ/x̄)X̄ — biased but consistent, better than ȳ when y is roughly proportional to x (correlation > CV_x/2CV_y). The regression estimator is at least as good asymptotically.
Key takeaways
- SRSWOR beats SRSWR via the fpc.
- Neyman ≤ proportional ≤ SRS in variance.
- Systematic sampling fails when the period matches the sampling interval.