3 ms·

i don't think you have enough data to be linking this as if it has meaning. N=104 is not a large sample size.

• phreeza 5y ago
  It depends what you are measuring. It looks like the rough distribution is robust across seniority strata, hinting at the sample size probably being adequate.
• phaemon 5y ago
  104 seems enough to be meaningful. Might have a fair margin of error but that's ok. Why do you think otherwise?
• renewiltord 5y ago
  Out of curiosity, what is the math you used to determine it's not a large sample size?
• onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  N=104 is a fine sample size for some things - especially given how much comfort you have for error. This isn't a great study in general, because, realistically, there isn't a large range for the work hours. And the majority of them were grouped into one bucket => 4-8 hours. That's the biggest problem. The second biggest is that - presumably - not all of the respondents work 5 days per week. The third is that - without a large sample size - your margin of error is going to cover a pretty big chunk. If your finding is 6 hours +/- 1 hour, 95% CI - that's pretty unsurprising. You need a large sample size because there are ~115M workers in the US. What are the odds these 104 people are a decent representation of all ~115M voters?? If there's only 10,000 people this applies to that read HackerNews, then - if you fixed everything else - your CI wouldn't be super low.