4 ms·
Your trial sounds expensive, maybe 50 times as expensive as the version where you just talk to people, for the same statistical power. So that's at least one re
by dmurray 7y ago
Your trial sounds expensive, maybe 50 times as expensive as the version where you just talk to people, for the same statistical power. So that's at least one reason not to do it.
And you still end up measuring something different from what you want. Just as in your theory about people committing to use their e-bike more when they've spent a lot of money on it, people behave differently when you give them things for free.
- hannob 7y ago> Your trial sounds expensive, maybe 50 times as expensive as the version where you just talk to people, for the same statistical power. It is, especially if you do it with proper statistical power. Though I'm deeply convinced that it would do science a lot of good to do fewer more expensive, but meaningful trials instead of more meaningless ones. Your concern is somewhat valid, as you can't "blind" the test, but by using similarly priced bikes you could at least cancel out a price bias. Still there might be a "new tech" bias towards e-bikes. But then we're at "this is the best we can do" and there are limitations of how good we can study things. The study quoted above is not even near trying to do that.