4 ms·
> I'm aware of sample size determination, but minimum sample sizes typically assume random sampling over the target population. If you were aware of sample siz
by jnbiche 10y ago
> I'm aware of sample size determination, but minimum sample sizes typically assume random sampling over the target population.
If you were aware of sample size determination, why would you suggest that a 6000 person sample is "pretty small"? It's pretty big for a national study, actually.
Whether or not the sample selection was properly done with attention paid to bias is difficult to say, but has little to do with the sample size since a non-randomly-selected sample is likely worthless whether it's 6000 or 60,000.
I have some significant concerns about this study, but sample size is not among them.
- mdorazio 10y agoSpecifically because their methodology for sample selection is entirely hidden. If you do a generic online survey with self-selected respondents then 6k is not very many people from which to be drawing sweeping conclusions. Edit: also, I disagree that sample size is entirely worthless in non-random sample selection. If your sample size is a big enough percentage of the target population you are studying, you can draw some conclusions regardless of randomness. You just end up having to use absurdly large samples to get meaningful data.