7 ms·
>> the true lower-bound in percentage terms would be 19 (that we know were harassed) of 384 (total population), around 5%. You're mixing a population about whi
by runako 8y ago
>> the true lower-bound in percentage terms would be 19 (that we know were harassed) of 384 (total population), around 5%.
You're mixing a population about which you can make an inference (survey participants) with a population about which you cannot (people who were not even contacted about the survey). The resulting percentage is essentially meaningless.
- comex 8y agoIt is meaningless, if you want an accurate estimate, or even, say, a 95%-confidence lower bound. But since we like to be pedantic on this forum, I’ll defend the parent: if you want a true, 100%-confidence lower bound (ignoring the possibility of false reports), then that would be 5%. It’s a completely useless statistic, and you shouldn’t use it for anything, but it’s correct for the strictest possible interpretation of “lower bound”.
- dbt00 8y agoAnd if you want a 99.99% confidence upper bound, it's (384-88+19)/384 == 82%. (the .01% is the probability of false negatives in the survey data). Again, pedantic, true, and useless, but cited for balance.