Running head: RESEARCH PROJECT 1 16 RESEARCH PROJECT Ongoing Research Project Michael University Research 8250 Professor X I. Background There are currently four generations working side by side in today’s workforce, yet very soon, there will be a fifth adding to the mix as the oldest generation ages out of the workforce and enters retirement (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). The Silent Generation have all but retired, but some still occupy positions in the workplace and still have significant influence through voting, media, and “heritage” or “emeritus” positions in high-placed institutions such as universities or executive boards. They were born around 1925 through 1945. The Baby Boomers are those said to be born between 1946 and 1964, many are still working and due to retirement age increases and the downfalls of the economy. This generation is can be found amongst Americans leadership at many city, state, and federal levels. The Baby Boomers, despite being rowdy and experimental in their youth, settled into a self-centered and materialistic approach to life in the 1980s, with a clear majority turning to Reagan, Reaganite neoliberal policies and even to religion through “born again” Christianity. Generation X is often referred to as the MTV Generation; they were born between 1965 and 1980. Many grew up during the Vietnam War and the rise of the AIDS virus. They are characterized by their hedonistic approach to life, their rejection of traditional values put forth by their conservative parents, and a cynicism for the established norms of society. Next is Generation Y, or the Millennials, which was born between 1981 and 1995. This generation saw the Persian Gulf War unfold before their very eyes on national television, and soon followed the OJ Simpson trial, as well as Former President Clinton’s impeachment. This so-called Millennial generation is among the most maligned in history, having been dismissed as narcissists and mindless, materialistic and venal workaholics (Barton, Koslow, Fromm, & Egan, 2012; Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, & Bergman, 2011; Donatone, 2013; Twenge, 2013). This generation has simultaneously grown up with the Internet and yet still carries memories of the world before the digital sphere took over; this generation has nonetheless been denigrated in the popular press to the point where few take people of this generation seriously, even as they “age” into the dominant workforce generation. The newest generation that will be going to work soon is Generation Z, who were born toward the end of the 1990’s to 2010. This generation witnessed the 9/11 attacks from elementary school and endured OIF/OEF each day of their lives, with many seeing parents sent off to the Middle East and shipped home in body bags or with extreme disabilities. They have always known of Homeland Security’s threat levels to include increased airport security. They are soon to be the target demographic of colleges, m ...

1. Running head: RESEARCH PROJECT 1
16
RESEARCH PROJECT
Ongoing Research Project
Michael
University
Research 8250
Professor X
I. Background
There are currently four generations working side by side in
today’s workforce, yet very soon, there will be a fifth adding to

2. the mix as the oldest generation ages out of the workforce and
enters retirement (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). The
Silent Generation have all but retired, but some still occupy
positions in the workplace and still have significant influence
through voting, media, and “heritage” or “emeritus” positions in
high-placed institutions such as universities or executive
boards. They were born around 1925 through 1945. The Baby
Boomers are those said to be born between 1946 and 1964,
many are still working and due to retirement age increases and
the downfalls of the economy. This generation is can be found
amongst Americans leadership at many city, state, and federal
levels. The Baby Boomers, despite being rowdy and
experimental in their youth, settled into a self-centered and
materialistic approach to life in the 1980s, with a clear majority
turning to Reagan, Reaganite neoliberal policies and even to
religion through “born again” Christianity. Generation X is
often referred to as the MTV Generation; they were born
between 1965 and 1980. Many grew up during the Vietnam War
and the rise of the AIDS virus. They are characterized by their
hedonistic approach to life, their rejection of traditional values
put forth by their conservative parents, and a cynicism for the
established norms of society. Next is Generation Y, or the
Millennials, which was born between 1981 and 1995. This
generation saw the Persian Gulf War unfold before their very
eyes on national television, and soon followed the OJ Simpson
trial, as well as Former President Clinton’s impeachment. This
so-called Millennial generation is among the most maligned in
history, having been dismissed as narcissists and mindless,
materialistic and venal workaholics (Barton, Koslow, Fromm, &
Egan, 2012; Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, & Bergman,
2011; Donatone, 2013; Twenge, 2013). This generation has
simultaneously grown up with the Internet and yet still carries
memories of the world before the digital sphere took over; this
generation has nonetheless been denigrated in the popular press
to the point where few take people of this generation seriously,
even as they “age” into the dominant workforce generation. The

3. newest generation that will be going to work soon is Generation
Z, who were born toward the end of the 1990’s to 2010. This
generation witnessed the 9/11 attacks from elementary school
and endured OIF/OEF each day of their lives, with many seeing
parents sent off to the Middle East and shipped home in body
bags or with extreme disabilities. They have always known of
Homeland Security’s threat levels to include increased airport
security. They are soon to be the target demographic of
colleges, militaries, private industries, and commerce. However,
are these institutions ready for this generation?
According to Jeongeun, Jiyun, Jaquette and Bastedo (2014),
there has been a shift in the labor market in the last one decade.
Following the technological evolution, most organizations
focused on the mechanization of labor in disregard of the human
capital requirements. The trend led to the over-reliance on the
mechanized systems, which also affect the efficacy of the entire
human capital. The adoption has also created challenges in the
realization of integrated, diversified, and motivated human
capital resources. The current global diversity has led to the
recruitment of employees from different social, cultural, and
political forums (Fedele, 2016). Integration of the generation Z
development might help the organizations in again gain a
cohesive and reliable workforce (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak,
2000).
II. Problem Statement
The technological evolution has led to high mechanization of
employees. In this regard, the human capital has lost its ability
to interrelate and remain cohesive. The decline of innovation is
one of the obvious consequences of inappropriate labor market
entry and overshadowing of the human interactions and
subjectivity. Because different generations have experienced
technological saturation differently, this leads to meaningful
generational differences that must be addressed in the
workforce and for which managers and others must be ready.
III. Purpose of the Study
The study will use a quantitative methodology to analyze the

4. factors that lead to ineffective human capital and to then
integrate them with human capital approaches to the future /
emerging generation Z. By combining useful human capital
approaches with known information about generational cohorts
and their characteristics, the study seeks to help to outline
meaningful takeaways with respect to generational cohorts and
their motivation, especially as related to technology. This
particular method of inquiry will include surveys and non-
intrusive observations that follow ethical and other protocols
for human subject observation. The investigated aspects will
include the cultural limits, motivation level, age difference, and
remuneration across skills. The study will provide insights on
the best possible approach to empower human capital while
maintaining a contemporary approach to understanding
mechanization and its impacts on the workplace, along with the
differential ways in which it may affect the different
generations of workers.
Literature Review
The following are articles that I found using the Walden
University library PsycARTICLES database and a set of
carefully-chosen keywords to help delineate the highest quality
peer-reviewed sources. I strongly believe that each of these
articles will support my ongoing research project. The research
question being asked is as follows:
R1. How does motivation change across generational cohorts
before and after technology in the workplace has been
introduced?
Key Words: Motivation, Generation, Employee
Article 1
Motivation at Work: Which matters more, generations or
managerial level (Deal, et al (2013).
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether
generations differ in level of work motivation and whether
differences in work motivation are better explained by
managerial level than by generation. Data were collected from
3,440 working participants by using an online survey. Results

5. indicate that managerial level better explains work motivation
than does generational cohort. Although Gen Xers, Late
Boomers, and Early Boomers did differ in external and
introjected work motivation, there was substantially more
variance in work motivation explained by managerial level.
Individuals at lower managerial levels had higher levels of
external motivation than did those at higher managerial levels,
whereas individuals at higher managerial levels had higher
levels of intrinsic, identified, and introjected motivation.
Understanding that work motivation appears to be more related
to managerial level than it is to generation advances our
knowledge of both generational differences and motivation at
work. This knowledge assists practitioners by providing
evidence that organizations should look to factors of level more
than generation when acting to understand and improve
employee motivation. Our study shows that in the current
managerial working population, work motivation is related to
managerial level more than it is to generation. This finding may
be surprising to those who assume that the different generations
constitute fundamentally different cultures.
Article 2
Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the
workplace: work motivation and overall job satisfaction (Eliasa,
Smith, & Barneya, 2012).
Given the prevalence of technology in the workplace, an
understanding of employees' attitudes towards technology is
essential. It is also important if these attitudes can be drilled
down into educational level or generational cohort. Such
attitudes have been linked to such important issues as the
successful implementation of new technologies in the
workplace, employee intent to use technology, and the actual
usage of technology by employees. As a result of the rapidly
aging workforce, and because age has been linked to computer
use and comfort, it is important to examine the relationship that
may exist between age and attitudes towards technology. This
study examines age as a moderator of 612 employees' attitudes

6. towards technology in relation to work motivation (intrinsic and
extrinsic) and overall job satisfaction. Further, given the
technological socialisation of the Generation X (Gen X) versus
the Baby Boomers, our sample comprised these two
demographics. Hierarchical moderated multiple regression
indicates age moderates the relationship between attitude
towards technology and intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and to a lesser extent, overall job satisfaction. In
each instance, older employees exhibit the strongest
relationships with the outcome variables when possessing a high
attitude towards technology. In contrast, older employees
exhibit the weakest relationships when possessing a low attitude
towards technology. These results are supportive of the
moderating effect of age on attitude towards technology.
Therefore, the article seems to include that attitude, rather than
age, has a strong effect on how people react to technology.
Finally, implications and directions for future research are
discussed.
Article 3
Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and
creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A
social-cognitive theory perspective (Ng, & Lucianetti, 2016).
Studies of innovative behavior (the generation, dissemination,
and implementation of new ideas) have generally overlooked the
agency perspective on this important type of performance
behavior. Guided by social– cognitive theory, we propose a
moderated mediation relationship to explain why and how
employees become motivated to make things happen through
their innovative endeavors. First, we propose that within-
individual increases in organizational trust and perceived
respect by colleagues promote within-individual increases in
creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time.
Second, we propose that within-individual increases in self-
efficacy beliefs promote within-individual increases an idea

7. generation, dissemination, and implementation over time.
Finally, we propose that psychological collectivism (a between-
individual variable) is a moderator, and that a higher level of
psychological collectivism weakens the positive relationship
between within-individual increases in self-efficacy beliefs and
within-individual increases in innovative behavior. Repeated
measures were collected from 267 employees in Italy at three
different time points.
Article 4
The Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and
Stability: Change across Cohorts. (Dush, Cohan, & Amato,
2003).
This author is hesitant to draw conclusions between single and
married cohorts, and their workplace productivity, more
specifically, if divorce effects workplace productivity. If so, is
one generation at a higher risk of divorce then another? It
should be noted that this is a significant gap in research that
could be explored. Dush, Cohan, & Amato (2003) studied two
generational cohorts, the Baby Boomers and Generation X, and
the effects of cohabitation on marital stability. They recognized
that many heterosexual males who lived together for prolonged
periods often resulted is future strained marriages, many of
which resulted in divorce (Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003).
Generation X was found to have 151% increased odds of
divorce compared to the Baby Boomers ((Dush, Cohan, &
Amato, 2003).
Article 5
The effects of military assignments and duties on the marital
status of Navy officers (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey,
California. Naval Postgraduate School).
Studies show that married male workers earn more than single
male workers, and male worker’s in general earn more than
female workers (Karacaoglu, 2003). Married officers in the U.S.
military earn higher scores on evaluations than their single
counterparts (Karacaoglu, 2003). This same article suggests

8. that those with children often earn more than single people, but
there was no conclusion suggesting that parents were more
productive, just that they earn more, and thus several variables
could affect this outcome. Research suggested from the authors
of this dissertation proclaim that the specific job duties of
employees have an overwhelming effect on marriage and in turn
increased or decreased productivity (Karacaoglu, 2003).
Introduction
The article “Motivation at work: Which matters more,
generation or managerial level?” (Deal et al., 2013) seeks to
investigate whether generational cohort affects motivation.
Using a survey methodology (n=3440), the authors ultimately
found that while there were differences among motivation in
different generations, hierarchy within the organization had a
greater impact on motivation than generational identity. The
conclusion of the authors was that people at lower levels of
managerial hierarchy had lower levels of motivation, and the
implications of this finding are discussed in the article. The
article’s findings seem to defy the generational stereotypes and
misconceptions that so often dominate discourse on this topic or
inform the public’s general understanding of generational
cohorts and their engagement with different forms of
technology.
Critique of the Literature Review
The literature review for this study was of a very high
quality. The authors broke up the literature review into several
sections, including self-determination theory, motivation, and
generational cohorts and the different theories about how they
affect people. Since the main issue of the study was to evaluate
the relationship between generational identity and motivation, it
was critical to outline the academic conversation and various
beliefs about these main areas of inquiry and belief. The authors
did an excellent job of articulating the history of this
conversation, even though this meant they drew on some articles

9. that were older than five years old at the time of publication.
However, this feature managed to enhance the study because it
allowed for a fuller view of the topic. Since generational
cohorts is a topic that varies significantly over time, with
different generations seeing the very concept differently, it is
important to consider the history of the research on this topic as
well as the different ways that it has evolved over time.
Furthermore, the literature review does an excellent job of
establishing an important framework for the study. The
qualitative concepts of motivation and other issues could be lost
in endless arguments about their relative definitions and merits,
but the grounding in this high-quality literature review
eliminates this possibility. It is a very unbiased and exhaustive
approach to the topic, with a thorough discussion that seems to
have left no stone unturned. Moreover, the literature review
itself is grounded in explaining the hypotheses of the study and
the ways that the authors sought to answer their questions
through their study. The authors provide a three-page, single-
spaced references section, which speaks to the truly exhaustive
nature of the literature review and the interdisciplinary efforts
in which they were engaged in its production. For those reasons,
this is a very high quality literature review whose standard
should be emulated by other scholars. The literature review
more than justifies the assumptions with which the authors
began the study and provides a robust theoretical underpinning
for the study.
Critique of the Methods/Research Design
The authors’ methodology involved a very clear
explanation, including an overview with an introduction to the
methodology that outlined the four main hypotheses of the study
as well as a more detailed outline of the methods. The authors
specified the participants and procedures, including the basic
demographic characteristics (n=3440; 1723 men and 1717
women; all were from the United States; average age of 46.1
years; 81% Caucasian). Although these methods are clearly
outlined, the fact that the survey only went to people related to

10. or part of the Center for Creative Leadership points to a certain
potential for sample bias. The fact that the overwhelming
majority of participants was Caucasian and middle-aged means
that this is not a very diverse group, and that perhaps the
findings are not as universally applicable as the authors would
have wanted. The fact that the study was conducted only in the
United States also points to the specter of potential sample bias.
Therefore, the prospect of sample bias may have unfortunately
impeded the generalizability of the results of the study.
The literature review was very strong, but the methodology of a
self-reported survey and basic statistical analysis was not as
innovative or strong as the promising and exhaustive literature
review was. There was no triangulation of the self-reported data
with another methodology, such as observation or laboratory
testing. This is concerning, especially given the ways that the
authors seem to come to their own conclusions, as well as
disappointing, given the quality of the literature review. Self-
reported data is notoriously unreliable, and the very limited
sample set in this study further emphasizes the ways in which
the study could be interpreted as classist or otherwise limited to
the concerns of male, upper-middle class Caucasians. Further,
from the perspective of generational cohort studies, the
overwhelming emphasis on middle-aged Caucasians diminishes
the contributions that this work can make to the overall
literature. At the same time,
Critique of the Results
The results are presented both as numerical data sets as
well as with a narrative. The authors clearly explain the
justification for their conclusions as well as the intermediate
steps they took in analyzing the statistical data. This allows the
reader to judge for themselves and to potentially re-analyze the
data within their own research. The data set is of major use
because other researchers could pick up from it and reach
different conclusions. For this reason, the study is of very high
quality and represents a contribution.
Another useful thing about this article is how the authors

11. have drilled down each finding into its relationship with the
hypotheses they had postulated. They focused on all four of
their hypotheses, including the ones that were not supported by
the findings. This transparency is instructive and something that
other scholars should strive for. Although they only did simple
ANOVA tests of the data, the authors nonetheless presented
their data in an unbiased way and were unafraid to admit when
their results were not as predicted. This is admirable, especially
in today’s “publish or perish” world in which careers could be
ruined by simply admitting someone is wrong.
Thus, this is an exemplary results section. The authors may
not have gotten the results they wanted, but they nonetheless
presented them in an unbiased and very effective manner. Even
novices to the field will gain knowledge by reading this section,
and it provides useful data that many people will benefit from
reading and analyzing as they conduct future studies. For
nascent scholars seeking to find inspiration in existing works,
this article’s results are promising and reassuring because they
show how someone can take less-than-desirable results and
nonetheless craft a useful piece of scholarship that adds to the
intellectual conversation about any topic of interest.
Critique of the Discussion
The discussion of the results could have been taken further
by the authors. The authors organize the discussion around four
“interesting” findings and several potential explanations. As a
discussion section, this is exemplary and gives novice scholars
something to aspire to. However, the authors could have gone
into greater depth or analysis of the implications. Although they
do a good job of explaining their findings as well as the
limitations thereof, this section is not as in-depth as the
literature review and could have gone further in outlining
avenues for future research and analysis. The authors missed
opportunities to outline further studies or ways that their
hypotheses could be modified for future work.
The authors do account for the study’s limitations at length,
which is to their credit (Deal et al., 2013, pp. 12-13). They note

12. that there was self-selection and thus some kind of sample bias,
as well as the fact that they could not mitigate for a control
population that might be motivated but not working. The biggest
limitation that they note, almost as an aside, was the lack of the
Millennial generation cohort. This is a very significant
limitation since the Millennials are a dominant generation in the
workforce right now. As they begin to dominate culturally and
economically, the Millennials’ unique features as a generational
cohort will mandate greater study, so their exclusion from the
study is truly unfortunate.
The discussion concludes with suggestions for future research,
which are useful and orienting for those interested in
investigating the topic. At the same time, however, they are
rather perfunctory and do not go into detail, but rather seem to
be an attempt to fill in the gaps of limitations in the present
study. These suggestions are intuitive and would have already
been obvious to the reader of the study, so they add very little
to the study itself or to the literature. This is disappointing,
since the reader of the study is already keenly aware through the
exemplary sections of the article that the authors are talented
and could do far better than what this section offers.
Overall Evaluation
This is overall a very useful contribution to the literature
on motivation and management, but the study has some very
significant limitations. The literature review is exhaustive and
provides an extensive reference / starting point for those who
are interested in the topic, but the methodology of the study
relies far too heavily on self-reported information and data. The
study answers some interesting questions, but the exclusion of a
major demographic or generational cohort means that its
relevance is very limited in the contemporary world. The study
is a useful contribution, as should be emphasized again, but at
the same time, its methodology is very limited in terms of what
it can offer in the long-term to those who seek to investigate the
relationship between motivation and generational cohort or
generational identity. Furthermore, the limited sample means

13. that it simply reinforces knowledge about white men, which is
decreasingly relevant in today’s pluralistic, increasingly diverse
world.
Discussion
The preliminary results from this literature review reveal that
there is something of a schizophrenic approach to generational
studies in the workplace. Although the ascent of one generation
and the descent of another is by definition a current and
ongoing problem in business, if not even a metric by which a
business should consider itself successful (after all, few
businesses survive for the long-term), few studies have
considered how to balance the needs of ascending and
descending generations in the workforce. The stereotypical,
almost clichéd line about technology is that the younger the
generation, the better they are with technology. Yet this is a
very simplistic view and as these studies have shown, other
variables may significantly impact motivation, technological
engagement, and other features.
Because there is currently very little information about the
youngest generation, Generation Z, in the workplace, there is
also a problem related to how little research exists as they begin
to enter the workforce in earnest. Although seemingly endless
think pieces have been written decrying the Millennials,
Generation X, and even the Baby Boomers as the worst
generation in human history, little has been written so far about
this generation. However, the elders have complained about the
youth going back to Socrates’ generation, so it seems inevitable
that these articles will begin to proliferate as this generation
enters the workforce in droves. Perhaps it is the most common
rite of passage for a generation to be maligned as to its
profligacy and laziness through the medium of essays and
articles, so Generation Z is simply awaiting its moment in the
“trending articles” box in the news organization of one’s
choice.
There are no hard or fast rules for generational cohorts and
technology, because each sector, each firm, and each region

14. (e.g., American south vs. the West Coast) are so vastly
different. Arguably, the identity claim to a generational cohort
is significantly different from that of a region, nation, or
professional identity; perhaps a larger issue could be how long
it takes for someone to absorb a new form of technology into
their daily life and how it might affect their motivation at work.
Further, perhaps there are regional or educational variations
among this group. Perhaps, for example, there are major
variations between the American South or the Northeast, and so
on, or perhaps motivation is highest among people with a higher
level of education; perhaps only one generation of the five
currently working has a strong interest in and engagement with
technology.
References
Barton, C., Koslow, L., Fromm, J., & Egan, C. (2012).
Millennial Passions: Food, Fashion, and Friends. Bcg
Perspectives.
Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., &
Bergman, J. Z. (2011). Millennials, narcissism, and social
networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and
why. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 706–711.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.022
Deal, J.J., Stawiaki, S., Graves, L., Gentry, W.A., Weber, T.J.,
& Ruderman, M. (2013). Motivation at Work: Which matters
more, generations or managerial level? Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 65(1), 1-16. Doi
10.1037/a0032693
Donatone, B. (2013). Millennial narcissism: Helicopter parents
are college students’ bigger problem. Retrieved February 1,
2017, from
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exam
iner/2013/12/millennial_narcissism_helicopter_parents_are_coll
ege_students_bigger_problem.html
Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., &Amato, P.R. (2003). The

15. Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and
Stability: Change across Cohorts. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65(3). (Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003)
Eliasa, S. M., Smith, W.L., & Barneya, C.E. (2012). Age as a
moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace:
work motivationand overall job satisfaction. Behaviour &
Information Technology. Vol. 31 Issue 5, p453-467. 15p.
Fedele, R. (2016). GENERATION NEXT. Australian Nursing &
Midwifery
Journal. Vol. 23. No. 7. Pp 16.
Harber, J. G. (2011). Generations in the Workplace: Similarities
and Differences. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper
1255.http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1255
Jeongeun, K., Jiyun, K., Jaquette, O., & Bastedo, M. N. (2014).
Institutional Stratification
and the Post-college Labour Market: Comparing Job
Satisfaction and Prestige across Generations. Journal of Higher
Education. Vol. 85. No. 6. pp 761-791.
Karacaoglu, N. (2003). The effects of military assignments and
duties on the marital status of Navy officers (Doctoral
dissertation, Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School).
Ng, T.H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases
in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change
self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14-34.
doi:10.1037/apl0000029
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work
values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal
of Management Reviews. Vol. 73. No. 1. pp 79-96.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
Twenge, J. M. (2013). The Evidence for Generation Me and
Against Generation We. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 11–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466548
Xiaoqing, G., Yuankun, Z., & Xiaofeng, G. (2013). Meeting the
digital natives: Understanding the acceptance of technology in
classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. Vol.

16. 16. No. 1. pp 392-402.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at
Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and
Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, N.Y.: American
Management Association,
Sampling
Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (2008) go into fine detail
on simple random sampling, and how to assist with studies that
have difficulty with being able to ascertain exact numbers

17. within a population.
Inappropriate Sampling Strategies
Accidental Sampling
Cluster sampling is
Probability sampling is
Systematic sampling is
Stratified Sampling
Minimax Sampling
Quota Sampling
Best Sampling Strategy
G*Power Analysis & Sample Size
References
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research
methods in the social sciences (7th ed.). New York: Worth.
Roanoke Rescue Mission Ministries (2012). Statistics. Retrieved
from http://rescuemission.net/statistics/
Trochim, W.K. (2006). Statistical power. Retrieved om
February 2, 2017 from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/power.php
United States Census Bureau (2012). Roanoke City Quick Facts.
Retrieved February 3, 2017 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51770.html