View Single Post
Old 10-11-2013, 11:22 AM   #28
ApK
Award-Winning Participant
ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,393
Karma: 68715774
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ, USA
Device: Kindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
My point is that by preferentially not interviewing people who are unlikely to have a reader, you're artificially inflating the proportion of people that your survey finds do have one.

It would be like conducting a survey on how many people use email - by sending out email questionnaires.
Possibly, but as I said, I believe this is regarded as a credible group, and I've been told there are ways to correct for that.
(For example, that 40% may have been a raw 80 percent but they knew to adjust it based on the population not sampled, or based on data from another door-to-door survey...don't know, just speculating. Is there a survey expert in the house?)

ApK

Last edited by ApK; 10-11-2013 at 01:37 PM.
ApK is offline   Reply With Quote