Hunger

Appendix A: Methodology
Schools were chosen to participate based on the availability of local
volunteers affiliated with the organizations that coordinated this research.
No incentives were offered to students for taking the survey.
Limitations of the Methodology
The survey used a convenience sample, meaning that the findings are
not directly generalizable to the U.S. student population at large. Steps
were taken to minimize sample bias in order to produce results that are
transferable and will expand the existing knowledge base on student
food insecurity. Toward that end, surveying was not allowed outside
dining halls, residence halls, campus food pantries, or other locations
that might oversample students based on their housing or eating habits.
While the sampling method places limitations on this study, it is unclear
how it biases the findings, if at all.
Moreover, while the full sample is not generalizable to the larger student
population, the survey did provide a population of 1,801 respondents who
qualified as food insecure. The investigation of those respondents provides
a useful window into the experience of food insecure college students.
Demographics
Despite the use of a convenience sample, the survey respondents in this
study compared favorably to the combined student population at the
participating schools in terms of gender and race (see Table 14). The
sample was 57 percent female, compared to 54 percent of students at the
participating schools. In terms of race, the sample was 40 percent white,
19 percent Asian, 18 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 14 percent black
or African American. This lines up closely with the student population
at the participating schools, which is 41 percent white, 19 percent
Asian, 17 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 8 percent black or African
American. The close alignment in demographics suggests that the sample
is reasonably similar to these campuses as a whole.
A comparison was also made to the nationwide undergraduate population.
Since the sample consisted overwhelmingly (95 percent) of undergraduate
students, this comparison seemed appropriate. In this assessment, the survey
sample compares less favorably. The sample is more heavily weighted
toward 18-21 year-olds and students of color than the nationwide
undergraduate population. This difference is likely to primarily be a
function of the schools that participated in the survey. The participating
schools happen to have a more racially diverse student body than the
national average. In addition, compared to the nationwide population the
study oversampled students from four-year universities, which tend to have
a younger student population than community colleges.
41