3 ms·
> few dozen in the room with you is an adequate sample It's not, though? Unless you're fine with a very high margin of error... Also the sample in studies lik
by Wytwwww 2y ago
> few dozen in the room with you is an adequate sample
It's not, though? Unless you're fine with a very high margin of error... Also the sample in studies like this is hardly ever close to being random anyway.
> it should not surprise you that statistical significance is achieved through a much smaller sample size
Sure... just with a very low confidence level.
- braiamp 2y agoMargin of error only occurs when you expect high variability and a very large population of measurements. When the set of potential measurements is of size 2, having enough statistical power can be achieved with very low sample size. Anyways, many results have survived stage 4 analysis (real world, observational, administrative documents sourced), even when their OG sample size is relatively small.
- shakna 2y agoStatistical analysis in psychology is traditionally very poor, because there is an exceptionally high amount of variability. This is a known problem.
- braiamp 2y agoNo, psychology studies have been traditionally very poor because most of the theory was literally out of someone ass, without proper design. Newer studies have been shown to be very robust, public freakout notwithstanding.
- shakna 2y agoNewer studies [0] show us that a) p-hacking is still alive and well in the psychological community. b) p-curves are not sufficient for detecting this. That isn't a lack of proper design. It's a case of statistics being abused to show significance when there is none. [0] https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/2151-2604/a000383 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/2151-2604/a000383