Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Yes, of course. But depending on what you are studying and the result a smaller sample size can give statistical significant result. I read the comments about sample size in this thread as a disbelief that a small sample size ever could be statistical significant. And since that is a common error to believe that I just wanted to point that out.
|
That's exactly right - the number of samples required for a given level of statistical significance depends very much on the nature of what is being studied, the nature of its statistical distribution etc.
For example, if we *know*, a priori, that a die has a heavy bias towards a particular number, such that a roll of that die is known to have a 99% chance of being X, where X is an unkown in the range 1 to 6, then we don't have to make many rolls at all to have a very highly statistically significant idea of X.
(Please note that I'm not saying anything about the study in question, just following up on the more general statistical question.)
/JB