| Course | MT355 Marketing Research and Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Survey sampling plan |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT355 Unit 7
Invite Everyone and Admit the Margin: An MT355 Unit 7 Sampling Plan for a Swim School Weighing Adult Classes
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT355: Marketing Research and Analytics
Unit 7 Sampling Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The swim school, list and figures are composite; the sampling methods and sources cited are real.
Target Population and Frame
The target population is adults aged 25 to 64 who live a short drive from either pool and cannot complete one length without stopping. The frame, the list the school can actually reach, is its own database of 2,940 current and recent family households: 1,710 near North and 1,230 near Riverside. The frame and the population are not the same. The frame includes only families who have used the school, mostly parents of children in lessons, and it includes many adults who can swim. Malhotra (2019) stresses that the gap between a target population and a sampling frame is a source of error that no sample size can fix.
Box One: The Size the Owner Wants
The owner asked for a margin of about 5 points at 95 percent confidence. For a proportion near 50 percent, that requires 385 eligible respondents. Two rates turn that into invitations. The expected response rate, based on the school's past email surveys, is about 24 percent. The expected share of respondents who cannot swim a length, from the Unit 5 soft launch, is about 22.5 percent. Dividing 385 by 0.24 and then by 0.225 gives about 7,130 invitations, more than twice the 2,940 households on the list.
The Decision: Invite Everyone
Since the list cannot supply the desired sample, the plan invites every household, a census of the frame. At the expected rates, 2,940 invitations should produce about 706 completed surveys and about 159 eligible adults. A sample of 159 gives a margin of about 7.8 points at 95 percent confidence for a proportion near 50 percent. The plan states that margin plainly, rather than presenting the results as more precise than they are.
The honest choice is to invite everyone on the list and report a wider margin, not to pretend the list is bigger than it is.
Box Two: A Panel Quota
To reach adults who are not on the school's list, the plan adds a commercial online panel. The panel vendor will recruit 250 eligible adults across the 14 ZIP codes within fifteen minutes of either pool, with quotas by ZIP code and age band. Panel respondents are volunteers who opted in to take surveys, so they are not a probability sample. Baker et al. (2013) caution against reporting a margin of error for such samples, because the standard formula assumes random selection. Panel results will therefore be reported as percentages without a margin, labeled as coming from an opt-in panel and compared with list results rather than combined with them.
Coverage
The design misses four groups. First, adults with no connection to the school, who appear only through the panel and only if they use online panels. Second, adults without reliable internet access, since both the list survey and the panel are online. Third, adults who do not read English, since the survey is in English only. Fourth, adults who cannot swim but are embarrassed to say so, who may answer the screener inaccurately or not respond at all. The report in Unit 10 will name these gaps beside every estimate.
Reminders and Timing
Dillman et al. (2014) found that multiple contacts raise response rates. The plan sends an invitation on December 6, a reminder on December 13 and a final reminder on December 20. The survey closes on January 3, leaving time to analyze before the February schedule deadline.
Why Not Sample From the List
A random sample from the list would save effort only if the list were larger than the sample needed. Here, inviting a random half would produce about 80 eligible adults and a margin near 11 points, too wide to compare pools or prices. A census of the list costs little more, since invitations are sent by email, and it gives every household on the frame an equal chance to respond. The plan's real limits come from the frame, not from how it is sampled.
What the Owner Should Expect
The owner should expect results precise enough to tell whether North or Riverside clears the bar of 16 enrollments by a comfortable margin, but not precise enough to settle close cases. If a pool's projection falls between 12 and 20, the action standard's trial option is the honest response, because the data will not support a firmer decision.
Weighting
The plan does not weight list responses, because the school has no reliable data on the population's composition to weight toward. It will compare the age and pool mix of respondents with the list and report any large differences.
Limits
The 24 percent response rate and the 22.5 percent screening rate are estimates from past surveys and a forty-person soft launch. If either is lower, the eligible sample will be smaller and the margin wider. At 18 percent response, eligible completes would fall to about 119 and the margin would widen to about 9 points.
References
Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., Gile, K. J., & Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 90-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt008
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Malhotra, N. K. (2019). Marketing research: An applied orientation (7th ed.). Pearson.
The Purdue Global MT355 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 asks for a sampling plan for the survey designed earlier. Start by naming the people the owner wants to learn about, then the list actually available, and explain how the two differ. Instructors expect sample size to be calculated step by step, with confidence level, margin and assumed proportions stated, then converted into invitations using expected response and eligibility rates. If the frame cannot supply the desired sample, the plan should say so and state the margin it can achieve. Non-probability samples, such as panels, should be reported without margins of error. A coverage section naming groups the design cannot reach is essential. Contact schedules and a sensitivity check on assumptions strengthen the plan. The plan should explain what precision the decision-maker can expect.
Inside the MT355 Unit 7 example
The sample defines population and frame, citing Malhotra on frame error. Box one calculates 385 eligible respondents and 7,130 invitations. The decision to invite every household follows, with about 159 eligible completes and a 7.8-point margin, under the highlighted line that the honest choice is to invite everyone and report a wider margin. Box two sets the panel quota and cites Baker and colleagues for reporting it without a margin. A coverage section names four missed groups. A section explains why sampling from the list would not help. Another tells the owner what precision to expect. Reminders follow Dillman and colleagues, weighting is declined with a reason and limits show the margin widening at 18 percent response.
MT355 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Sampling plans are usually judged on clear separation of population and frame, correct size calculations, honest reporting of achievable precision and attention to coverage. Graders reward calculations shown step by step. Acknowledging when a frame is too small, rather than overstating precision, shows integrity. Non-probability samples should be handled as such. Coverage gaps should be named specifically. A sensitivity check on response and eligibility rates shows the plan was tested against its assumptions. Contact schedules should be realistic for the decision deadline. Sampling sources need APA 7 entries. Plans that state a margin of error for an opt-in panel, or that ignore the gap between the people wanted and the list available, tend to lose marks.
Common MT355 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Sampling plans often calculate a sample size and stop, without checking whether the list can supply it. Another common weakness is assuming the list on hand is the same as the people the decision concerns. Some students report margins for panels or convenience samples. Coverage gaps are frequently ignored. Before drafting, count how many people your list actually holds and estimate how many will respond and qualify. If that number is smaller than you need, the plan should say so and explain what the smaller sample can still show. That honesty is usually what separates a strong plan from a weak one.
Get an MT355 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Describe the frame your Unit 7 case offers, imperfect or not, and send it with the prompt and rubric. The plan comes back inside 24-48h with the size calculation shown step by step, the frame's limits argued, and the uncovered groups named with the direction each would bend your results. Your first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT355 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT355 Unit 1: Published Statistic Critique Post
- MT355 Unit 2: Marketing Research Question Brief
- MT355 Unit 3: Secondary Market Research Review
- MT355 Unit 4: Marketing Questionnaire Draft
- MT355 Unit 5: Survey Pilot Revision Memo
- MT355 Unit 6: Published Study Seminar Reflection
- MT355 Unit 8: Qualitative Analysis
- MT355 Unit 9: Data Analysis Exercise
- MT355 Unit 10: Research Report
- MT340 Unit 7: Team Development Analysis Paper
- MT330 Unit 7: Export Landed Cost Model
- MT314 Unit 7: Social Venture Funding Strategy Memo
- MT313 Unit 7: Stakeholder Salience Analysis
MT355 Unit 7 questions, answered
When is surveying an entire list better than sampling it?
When the list is too small to yield the respondents needed even if everyone is invited. Sampling from it would reduce the eligible count further and widen the margin. The MT355 sample shows the arithmetic: a 5-point margin would need 7,130 invitations from a list of 2,940. In that situation a census is the rational design, and the plan should say why.
Why can an online panel not have a margin of error?
A margin of error describes how far a random sample's estimate is likely to fall from the population value. Opt-in panel members choose to join, so there is no known probability of selection, and the formula's assumptions fail. Panels can still be useful for direction and comparison. The sample reports panel results separately and says plainly that no margin applies to them.
Where do the response rate and incidence figures come from?
From the best evidence available, stated with its source. The sample takes 24 percent response from the school's previous customer survey and 22.5 percent incidence from its own pilot, nine eligible respondents among forty. Both are assumptions, and the plan shows how the expected yield would change if either proved lower, so a reader can judge the risk.
Where can I find a free MT355 Unit 7 sample paper?
The complete MT355 Unit 7 sampling plan is on this page, inviting every household on a swim school's list and reporting the margin honestly.
Why does the MT355 Unit 7 sample invite every household?
A 5-point margin would need 7,130 invitations, more than twice the 2,940 households on the list.