n = 40, this is junk. they couldn’t even get 100 people for this?
these were all sampled from 1 company in amsterdam. the differences could be explained by company culture, or local culture, or whatever. more work needed.
n=40 isn’t actually bad for generalized conclusions, given a reasonable spread in the results. Your second point is a much stronger argument. The sample is entirely non-representative.
IIRC from stats n=32 is generally considered the minimum to be considered representative for a random sample (and this is not a random sample outside of the company in Amsterdam 🙄).
n = 40, this is junk. they couldn’t even get 100 people for this?
these were all sampled from 1 company in amsterdam. the differences could be explained by company culture, or local culture, or whatever. more work needed.
n=40 isn’t actually bad for generalized conclusions, given a reasonable spread in the results. Your second point is a much stronger argument. The sample is entirely non-representative.
IIRC from stats n=32 is generally considered the minimum to be considered representative for a random sample (and this is not a random sample outside of the company in Amsterdam 🙄).
I don’t think you’re disagreeing with the parent poster…
Not every reply is a disagreement. It’s a common assumption that we’re not always aware of, because it’s true often enough.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing.
Neither do I. In fact, I’d be so bold as to say we agree!
Have a nice day :)
You too!
That’s correct.
That’s very concrete language you’re using there. Are you perchance an introvert? We could make it n = 41 and add a dash more selection bias to boot!
Shitty sample sizes are the majority of “research” nowadays. It’s sad how hard it is to find any even in the triple digits.
anything with personality types i already assume is junk. might as well use their zodiac sign.