the target population in research is

Summer is here, and so is the sale. Get a yearly plan with up to 65% off today! 🌴🌞

• Form Builder
• Survey Maker
• AI Form Generator
• AI Survey Tool
• AI Quiz Maker
• Store Builder
• WordPress Plugin

HubSpot CRM

Google Sheets

Google Analytics

Microsoft Excel

• Popular Forms
• Job Application Form Template
• Rental Application Form Template
• Hotel Accommodation Form Template
• Online Registration Form Template
• Employment Application Form Template
• Application Forms
• Booking Forms
• Consent Forms
• Contact Forms
• Donation Forms
• Customer Satisfaction Surveys
• Employee Satisfaction Surveys
• Evaluation Surveys
• Feedback Surveys
• Market Research Surveys
• Personality Quiz Template
• Geography Quiz Template
• Math Quiz Template
• Science Quiz Template
• Vocabulary Quiz Template

Try without registration Quick Start

Read engaging stories, how-to guides, learn about forms.app features.

Inspirational ready-to-use templates for getting started fast and powerful.

Spot-on guides on how to use forms.app and make the most out of it.

See the technical measures we take and learn how we keep your data safe and secure.

• Integrations
• Help Center
• Sign In Sign Up Free
• What is target population: Definition & examples

Researchers should consider many factors for the research to be successful when conducting research. One of the essential steps is identifying the target population for the research study early on while planning a market research study and thinking about goals and objectives . 

A target population sets a clear direction on the scope and object of the research and data types. This article will explain what the target population is in a research example and Frequently ask questions about the target population with all the details. 

• What is the target population in research?

The population that the intervention is intended to study and take conclusions from is known as the target population. A target population, also referred to as a target audience , is a group of people with particular characteristics that may be effectively defined to distinguish them from the general population. 

The target population aims to comprehend and assess their preferences and behaviors to promote a particular good or service or to research a specific feature that frequently manifests itself in their behavior, such as behavior patterns. It is a notion that has to do with business market segmentation tactics. 

A target population is typically a group or collection of factors you want to learn more about. The target population is a subset of the general public identified as the targeted market for a given product, advertising, or research. It is a subset of the entire population chosen to serve as the objective audience.

• How to determine the target population in a research design

Identifying the target population requires careful preparation , precise research questions, and a robust study design . It will assist you in obtaining trustworthy and accurate information that responds to your study issue or concern.

The target group is frequently chosen based on characteristics or demographics such as age , gender , employment , income , or health condition . The research's conclusions are then extrapolated to the broader population from whom the target sample was selected. 

How to choose your target population

Narrowing objectives is one of the most sensible things for businesses to do when identifying a target market so that their goods or services may be promoted effectively. The quality of the service will rise, and controllability will be significantly aided by an attempt to offer a more specific target population. 

First, you should define the target population you wish to attract with your marketing campaigns to create a target audience. The following steps will assist you in determining the population. 

• Set business or brand goals: This is essential in creating a content strategy or developing a marketing plan. 
• Define your study’s objective: You should clearly state your study's motivation and objective.
• Determine the population features: Determine the features of your intended audience. Gender, age, educational background, socio-economic situation, and career should be determined.
• Market research: Market research is the process of collecting and analyzing data about the market in which a business operates to understand the target audience and the potential of a specific product or service. 
• 3 target population examples

Target population determination is an ongoing process that requires research, analysis, and adjustments. You can identify the specific group of people you want to reach with your marketing efforts and create a strategy to interact with them effectively. Here are 3 target population examples. 

• Determining target population according to specific features: Let's say you are researching school service fees. First, you should consider specific characteristics when determining the target population. As parents whose children go to school and parents who send their children to school by service, you can narrow down your target audience in your research. 
• Determining target population according to characteristic features: Another example is you are launching a new perfume as a cosmetics company. Your further perfume appeals to young women. You should determine the age group of the target population . Then you focus on gender , and maybe you can consider the women using perfume. You can choose your target population in this way. 
• Determining target population according to target audience: The last example is that you are a business manager and want to measure the customer's satisfaction with a product. The target population would be all the customers of a particular business. 
• Frequently asked questions about the target population

The target population is a big group of people that researchers are looking at. The target population is very similar to other population types. There are frequently asked questions about the target population.

What is the target population in quantitative research

In quantitative research, the term "target population" refers to the group of people or things the researcher wishes to analyze and draw conclusions about based on the data collected.

What is the target population in qualitative research

In qualitative research, the term "target population" refers to the group of participants or subjects who are of interest to the researcher to explore, comprehend, and examine subjective experiences, behaviors, attitudes, or occurrences. Audiences often choose The target group based on criteria like gender, age, education, and other features.

Target population vs. sample population

The difference between the sample population and the target population is that the target population is a more significant subset of the target population chosen for the research project. In contrast, the sample population is the entire group of people or things the researcher is interested in working with.

Target population vs. accessible population

The difference between the target and accessible population is that an accessible population is that portion of the target population that may theoretically be included in the study. In contrast, a target population is the whole set of instances the researcher desires to analyze.

Target population vs. sampling frame

The difference between the target population and the sampling frame is that the sampling frame is a subset of the target population. The sampling frame typically serves as the starting point for the sampling process. The sample is a portion of the population and the individuals or items you have access to. In contrast, the target population is the entire group of people or objects to which you desire to generalize the results of your study.

Target population vs. sample

The difference between the population and the sample is the target population is much larger than the sample. The target population is the entire group or items the researcher intends to examine and draw conclusions about. On the other hand, a sample is a subset of the target population that is selected for study.

In conclusion, a researcher's target population is the group they are trying to comprehend. When the target audience is analyzed, new information may be found that enables the business to launch various advertising campaigns tailored to the target population's income levels and attitudes. 

This article has explained the definition of the target population, How to determine the target population in a research design, and examples of the target population. When you read this article, you can learn all details about the target population.

Sena is a content writer at forms.app. She likes to read and write articles on different topics. Sena also likes to learn about different cultures and travel. She likes to study and learn different languages. Her specialty is linguistics, surveys, survey questions, and sampling methods.

• Form Features
• Data Collection

Table of Contents

Related posts.

What is RAPID decision making model: Definition & examples

Fatih Serdar Çıtak

20+ Google Sheets formulas that will make your work easier

Şeyma Beyazçiçek

How to attract and hire talent for your startup

María Elena González

Study Population

• Reference work entry
• pp 6412–6414
• Cite this reference work entry

3473 Accesses

Study population is a subset of the target population from which the sample is actually selected. It is broader than the concept sample frame . It may be appropriate to say that sample frame is an operationalized form of study population. For example, suppose that a study is going to conduct a survey of high school students on their social well-being . High school students all over the world might be considered as the target population. Because of practicalities, researchers decide to only recruit high school students studying in China who are the study population in this example. Suppose there is a list of high school students of China, this list is used as the sample frame .

Description

Study population is the operational definition of target population (Henry, 1990 ; Bickman & Rog, 1998 ). Researchers are seldom in a position to study the entire target population, which is not always readily accessible. Instead, only part of it—respondents who are both eligible for the study...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Google Scholar  

Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1998). Handbook of applied social research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Friedman, L. M., Furberg, C. D., & DeMets, D. L. (2010). Fundamentals of clinical trials . New York: Springer.

Gerrish, K., & Lacey, A. (2010). The research process in nursing . West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners . London: Sage Publications Limited.

Riegelman, R. K. (2005). Studying a study and testing a test: How to read the medical evidence . Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sociology Department, National University of Singapore, 11 Arts Link, 117570, Singapore, Singapore

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu Hu .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada

Alex C. Michalos

(residence), Brandon, MB, Canada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Hu, S. (2014). Study Population. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2893

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2893

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-0752-8

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-0753-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Defining and Identifying Members of a Research Study Population: CTSA-Affiliated Faculty Members

Jonathan d. eldredge.

1 Biomedical Informatics Research, Training, and Scholarship Unit, Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001

Edward F. Weagel

2 Clinical and Translational Science Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001

Philip J. Kroth

An early step in research projects that involve humans consists of composing a clear and detailed definition of the study population. All experimental, observational, and qualitative research designs involving human subjects should define the study population in order to determine the eligibility of individuals for a study. The defined population then will become the basis for applying the research results to other relevant populations. Clearly defining a study population early in the research process also helps assure the overall validity of the study results.

Many research reports fail to define or describe a study population adequately. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) represent perhaps the most rigorous set of standards for reporting research results in a transparent and uniform manner. The CONSORT Guidelines observe that, “Despite their importance, eligibility criteria are often not reported adequately” [ 1 ]. Defining the study population in a research project involves inductive reasoning, critical thinking, and pragmatic project management skills. Yet, few research methods books or articles explicitly address the many issues related to rigorously defining and identifying members of study populations.

This research methods article provides guidance on defining a study population. The authors hope to fill a gap in the literature by describing the particular challenges of defining a study population of faculty members affiliated with a translational sciences center at a major health sciences center in the US. The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Clinical & Translational Sciences Award (CTSA) program funds (NIH Award # UL1TR000041) the University of New Mexico’s Clinical and Translational Sciences Center (CTSC). The authors briefly describe their methodology and results. They include examples from their own research, as well as from other research studies involving a variety of study populations, to illustrate key points. Finally, the authors reflect on their “lessons learned” from their experiences with this research project.

During April through July 2012, the authors sought to compile a complete and accurate list of all faculty members currently employed by the University of New Mexico with a formal affiliation with its CTSA-funded CTSC. All faculty members eligible for the study had an “affiliated” role with the CTSC while maintaining a formal appointed role(s), primarily with individual academic departments such as Advanced Nurse Practice, Biochemistry, Radiopharmaceutical Sciences, or Pediatrics. There were no formal or uniformly standardized faculty roles within the CTSC, simply an undefined “affiliated” status.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The CTSC maintained four lists used primarily for email notifications to individuals to keep them informed about various CTSC activities. None of these lists met the requirements for the project due to a lack of accuracy or completeness. One “Publicity” list used for distributing general public affairs announcements included individuals both affiliated and unaffiliated with the university. The affiliated individuals included non-faculty members as well as faculty members. A second “Teaching” list for faculty members who taught in CTSC-sponsored courses was both accurate and current, but it excluded many faculty members with non-teaching roles, such as clinicians or investigators. A third “Funded” list included only individuals who had received research funds, primarily pilot grants, directly from the CTSC. This third list of researchers excluded many others with formal CTSC teaching or administrative roles. The third list also included faculty members no longer employed by the university. A fourth “Administrative” list included mostly staff, although it contained some individual faculty members with administrative roles whose names did not necessarily appear on the other three lists.

The authors followed several iterative steps to compile a complete and accurate list by drawing selectively from all of the aforementioned lists with the goal of identifying faculty members associated with the CTSC. The inductive definition and identification phases of the study reported here consisted of dual, interactive processes.

The target population needed to consist of currently employed tenured or tenure track full-time faculty members at the University of New Mexico who fulfilled at least one of the following qualifications:

• Receiving funds from the CTSC for research projects
• Teaching in the CTSC-sponsored graduate curricula
• Holding administrative positions within the CTSC

For each successive phase of the inductive analytic process the authors more precisely defined their study population of currently employed CTSC-affiliated university faculty members. The authors verified current faculty employment status with the health sciences center’s contracts offices in the appropriate school or administrative units, such as the School of Medicine, College of Nursing, or College of Pharmacy. The authors also verified the current employment status of potentially eligible university faculty members outside the health sciences center, but still within the same institution’s departments, such as Psychology and Sociology.

The final list excluded all formerly affiliated faculty who had left the university, past or present staff members, part-time or adjunct faculty members, research faculty members no longer funded by the CTSC, and others appearing on the various lists who, for a number of reasons, did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Affiliated Master List

The list of “Teaching” faculty members affiliated with the CTSC provided the most accurate and complete account, so it became the starting point for this target population-identification phase.

Truth tables [ 2 – 4 ] usually are used for disentangling more complex relationships or potentially causal variables, but they seemed well suited for this more fundamental purpose of identifying a target population. The truth table depicted in Table 1 gauged the strengths and weaknesses of the four different existing CTSC lists against the emerging definition of what constituted a member of the new fifth “Affiliated” (shaded far right-hand column on Table 1 ) study population list. The three authors had 17 combined years of experience in working with the CTSC. The first and third authors were among the founding leaders who designed the graduate CTSC-sponsored curricula. The second author has held a senior administrative informatics post in the CTSC for the past three years. These roles helped the authors evaluate the accuracy and completeness of these CTSC lists.

Truth Table for Identifying CTSA-Affiliated Faculty Members

The “Affiliated” list emerged from the process described in this methods article. All other lists on this table already existed and were used for consultation in arriving at the “Affiliated” list in the far right-hand column.

The authors compiled a complete and accurate list of 108 CTSC-affiliated faculty members following several months of investigation using the process outlined above. The authors were highly confident that the list included all faculty members who belonged in the study population, while excluding all others. This “Affiliated” list was stratified by (1) clinical, (2) basic science, (3) pharmacy, or (4) nursing and other faculty members, before a random selection process began for the subsequent study process.

Inductive Processes

Plato and Aristotle, as well as many early physical scientists in more recent centuries such as Bacon and Mill, pioneered inductive approaches [ 5 ]. In its purest form, an inductivist approach begins “with a collection of data, empirical observations or measurements of some kind, and build[s] theoretical categories and propositions from [the] relationships discovered among the data” [ 6 ]. Pure inductivism tends to introduce biases, however [ 7 ]. More modern forms of inductivism have emerged in the form of techniques for developing clearly delineated categorizations and classifications that have high fidelity with describing logical groupings in the real world.

Induction contrasts with the other major form of logical reasoning known as deduction. Whereas induction assembles more and more specific observations in order to form a generalization, deduction begins with a generalization and then applies this generalization to specific instances [ 8 ]. Deduction assumes that the generalization of interest consists of an agreed-upon fact, principle, or theory [ 9 ].

Inductive approaches are more common than might be recognized immediately. While rarely noted explicitly, investigators often employ inductive approaches at different junctures of the research process. Investigators might use inductive processes, for example, to generate hypotheses or research questions. Investigators also apply inductive approaches to define study populations. Clinicians use inductive techniques when formulating patient diagnoses. Librarians and information science professionals, moreover, use inductive processes while engaged in classification processes, such as indexing or meta-tagging.

Analytic Induction

The analytic induction approach “involves an iterative testing and retesting of theoretical ideas using the data” [ 10 ]. Investigators use analytic induction to develop more clearly defined concepts or categories by examining individual cases against emerging concepts [ 11 ]. It seeks to remain faithful to empirical observations of a limited number of cases as any categorizations take shape, while ensuring that investigators avoid jumping to premature conclusions. It abstracts from some detailed observations and then, in a quasi-deductive way, it tests those abstractions against more and more cases. The abstractions are revised if they prove too inflexible or too narrow to incorporate any apparent deviant cases [ 12 ].

Analytic inductive approaches orient one unfamiliar with a new phenomenon to make sense out of it. In a way, analytic inductivism creates order out of disorder, or at least order amidst relative confusion. A zoologist, for example, upon encountering a new species, might initially categorize the animal by color. Eventually the zoologist finds this narrow color categorization scheme to be insufficient over successive cases to accurately describe additional examples of the new species, which are otherwise similar, except for the different colors. The zoologist instead shifts focus to the presence of vertebrae in the new species as a possibly more precise categorization system for uniquely defining the species [ 13 ].

Becker illustrated the similar use of analytic inductivism in the social sciences when he wrote: “Once we have isolated … a generic feature of some social relation or process and given it a name, and thus created a concept, we can look for the same phenomenon in places other than where we found it” [ 14 ]. Inductive analysis in a broader sense offers great flexibility in defining previously nebulous categories and classifications, whether in the physical sciences, in the social sciences, or in clinical settings [ 15 ]. Inductive analysis can only serve as a starting point that initiates further exploration to validate concepts or systems in the real world. Neither inductive nor deductive logic approaches alone will suffice in the research process [ 16 ]. Yet, inductivism offers the advantage of viewing even a familiar research problem from a fresh perspective [ 17 ].

In this study, the analytic inductive aspect of defining a study population relied on reacting to existing lists in order to more precisely define the final criteria for identifying all members of the study population. Questions arose about the current employment status of certain faculty members who had left the university when their names still appeared on a list of faculty members funded through the CTSC, to cite one example. As noted already, the simplified truth table displayed in Table 1 guided the dual definitional and identification processes.

The study population description needs to offer a clear definition as to who belongs to the study population and who should be excluded from the study population. The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals remind investigators to be explicit about the selection criteria for inclusion and exclusion that define a study population, adding that “The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way” [ 18 ]. Some researchers recommend including a table that delineates inclusion criteria [ 19 ]. The left-hand column in Table 1 provides an example of such inclusion criteria.

Investigators should employ standardized, commonly understood definitions of groups whenever possible in developing a study population description. The population of affiliated faculty members described in this article adhered to common conceptions of faculty members. Imagine the potential complexity of defining a study population associated with more nebulous concepts. Comstock et al. reveal, in their analysis of multiple epidemiological studies, how different investigators employed their own operational definitions for the concepts of race and ethnicity, rather than standardized definitions of these concepts [ 20 ]. The net result of these multiple definitions undermined the utility of comparing the studies. Gobbens et al. similarly discovered that the commonly referenced phrase “medical frailty in the elderly” did not have a standard definition, despite some investigators’ misconceptions to the contrary [ 21 ]. The research community in such circumstances might need to convene a consensus conference to arrive at a commonly understood definition [ 22 ].

Investigators need to be alert to (and, if necessary, to correct for) the possibility that their inclusion and exclusion criteria reflect gender, racial, ethnic, economic, or information disparities biases [ 23 ]. The first author made such a mistake, years ago while conducting a study of rural health care providers. The author assumed that most rural inhabitants had access to the same high-quality Internet connections as urban residents. Not much later, the field informants for the study population fortunately corrected this misunderstanding [ 24 ]. Attitudes, behaviors, or skills within a study population might change over time in other circumstances. If that change itself serves as a focus of the study, this dynamic needs to be addressed in the research strategy. For example, if a research study wishes to gauge the effectiveness of library or informatics training on a defined population, but some members of the initial study population acquire the training via different venues, then the investigators need to identify and exclude these individuals from the study population.

Who applies the stated inclusion criteria to determine eligibility? The authors defined the study population and then recruited participants directly from that defined population in every study that they have conducted. One experiment involving first-year medical students used enrollment lists of students in good academic standing to define the study population [ 25 ]. What if a study recruits individuals by asking prospective participants to self-identify? In such circumstances, study population members’ own self-definitions might not align with investigators’ definitions. One study found that immigrant and refugee youth self-defined themselves in ways within the contexts of their own experiences [ 26 ]. Investigators must clearly define and promulgate their definition of a study population early in the study to avoid enrollment of ineligible individuals either later in the study or at other study sites [ 27 ].

Validity refers to the close proximity of a defined concept and what the investigators are measuring [ 28 ]. For the central example in this article, a poorly defined or recruited study population of putatively CTSC-affiliated faculty members that includes ineligible individuals such as staff members who are not engaged in the same types of roles will jeopardize the credibility of the study. The inadvertent inclusion of faculty not affiliated with the CTSC or retired faculty members would have similarly threatened the integrity of the study. Critics could justifiably deem this, or any other study, to be flawed due to sloppiness in the assembling of the study population.

Verification

The authors implemented this study in a highly controlled university environment where many resources were available to verify the accuracy of individual members of the defined study population. The authors had an online employee directory, a faculty contracts office, and departmental administrators who often could quickly resolve identity or status issues. The authors additionally had their own extensive 17 years of cumulated experience with the CTSC to aid in the resolution of identity issues with a high degree of fidelity. Many research studies occur in less-controlled “field” contexts that lack such verification resources or expert knowledge.

Simpson et al. have noted that “Although it is recommended that study eligibility criteria should be clear, objective and precise, they are often complex and open to interpretation” [ 29 ]. The authors hope that the recommendations in this article will help others to streamline and lend greater credibility to their own studies involving human populations. The authors could not locate a study to serve as an exemplar of a perfectly defined and identified study population. Instead, they identified a series of large scale cohort studies in the International Journal of Epidemiology that do offer definitions of study populations that are both concise and precise. The cohorts involve study populations as diverse as Japanese diabetics, Danish nurses, secondary school students in Amsterdam, twins, German uranium miners, and Thai university students [ 30 – 35 ]. Readers might find these examples helpful for their own research studies.

Lessons Learned

Institutions and organizations often function and build decisions on definitions of groups that are not well defined. Such definitions will serve episodic needs connected with an initiative or program in the short-run, rather than as master lists capable of serving long-term institutional needs. In the example at the University of New Mexico, many official CTSC communications contain the words “affiliated” or “affiliation” when referring to faculty with an institutional relationship, when no definition exists to guide one in interpreting what these words mean. All organizations reflect at least some ambiguity when defining affiliated faculty groups. Still, many investigators wanting to conduct organizationally related research often assume, at least initially, that the organizations have rigorously defined all group definitions.

Real world experience reveals wide gaps between aspirational goals and actual practices when defining populations. Motivating organizations to construct well-thought-out definitions poses challenges, since doing so might force these organizations to confront very difficult structural, hierarchal, political, or cultural conflicts. Some examples of these myriad conflicts may involve resolving ambiguities about budgeting, organizational authority, or political problems. As an example, defining who is affiliated with a CTSA at an institution may impact the authority academic departments or other research centers have over their own primarily affiliated faculty members. These kinds of probing discussions are often difficult to pursue smoothly and might be politically charged.

Despite these challenges, organizations that invest the time and resources to more rigorously define these group definitions will reap the previously described long-term benefits. Perhaps analogous to swallowing bad-tasting medicine, working out important group definitions will improve organizational health by helping the organization to engage in difficult, complex, or otherwise unpleasant issues.

Defining a study population early in the design stages of a research project will help to facilitate a smooth implementation phase. Clear definitions inform the value of applying research results to relevant populations for real world purposes. Importantly, a carefully and accurately defined study population enhances the completed study’s validity. This article describes the many challenges in defining a research study population and their potential solutions.

Acknowledgments

Funding Support

Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque and Clinical and Translational Sciences Center, University of New Mexico. NIH Award # UL1TR000041.