Re: Anyone good at statistics...??
- From: "Steven L." <sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:13:36 -0400
r norman wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:03:18 +0100, "Manx" <Manx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi foks.
Just wondering about all those surveys that ask hundreds or thousands of people what they think of Darwinism, Creationism, etc: I'm told that when the figures are extrapolated to produce an estimate for the entire population, there's some kind of 'confidence level' that can be calculated from the size of the sample.
Is this right so far...?
So... what can a survey say if only *three people* were asked? What does the statistical analysis say that makes it clear to everyone that three is a lousy number of people to ask...? Hoe does the 'three-ness' of your survey show up in your final results?
Does my question make sense...?
Ta for all thoughts!
M.
This is a well worked out problem in sampling. See, for example,
Margin of Error and Confidence Levels Made Simple
http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp
which has a table of percent margin of error (at the 95% confidence
level) vs. sample size. A sample size of 50 has a margin of error of
14% and the error grows very rapidly for smaller sample sizes.
That table only goes down as far as a sample size of 50.
For sample sizes way below that (such as the OP's three), the usual assumption of normality no longer holds. For a sample size of only three, it's impossible to say what the distribution looks like, and so some non-parametric test would need to be used instead.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
- References:
- Anyone good at statistics...??
- From: Manx
- Re: Anyone good at statistics...??
- From: r norman
- Anyone good at statistics...??
- Prev by Date: Re: Wilkins World Tour 2009
- Next by Date: Re: Anyone good at statistics...??
- Previous by thread: Re: Anyone good at statistics...??
- Next by thread: Re: Anyone good at statistics...??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|