3 ms·
>I say size was statistically significant not quality of data Size is not necessarily significant unless is a random selected sample (and I'm not sure voluntee
by pmelendez 11y ago
>I say size was statistically significant not quality of data
Size is not necessarily significant unless is a random selected sample (and I'm not sure volunteers would count as random).
Let's say you have a population of 100 and there are two groups (A-80% and B- 20%). Let's say that individuals in group A are more keen to voluteer themselves. You could have a sample of 50% of the population and still not have a representative sample of their entire population (ie. 49 from A and 1 from B), so the sample size didn't matter to much in that case.
- notfoss 11y ago> Size is not necessarily significant unless is a random selected sample (and I'm not sure volunteers would count as random). I would say that most surveys/studies are done on a voluntary basis.
- pmelendez 11y ago>I would say that most surveys/studies are done on a voluntary basis. Also most surveys/studies carefully say that they are not necessarily representative.
- notfoss 11y agoYes, a disclaimer over the validity of the results would be nice ;). But to be fair, most surveys are taken rather seriously, especially by the common populace and the main stream media, ignoring the lack of absoluteness in the results.
- Merovius 11y agoThere is also a difference in e.g. stopping random people on the street and asking if they are willing to participate, or posting an ad online and waiting for people to call, even though both are voluntary.