Allow me to simplify this article "Stimulus before bed disrupts sleep."
Yes, sample size matters. Sample size lends credibility to your results as the larger your sample size, the smaller the risk of results being artificially skewed by an anomalous trend within a small segment of the sample. Good, conclusive, representative research takes time and more than half a class-room full of people. Hacks and people trying to trump up numbers are the only people who do research like this and call it definitive. Any high-school statistics teacher will tell you that.
I think you need to learn how statistics work. I just asked 3 people to read your comment and they all said it was inane. My study will now conclude that 100% of people think your comment is inane. I also just flipped two pennies. They both landed heads up. Pennies land head-up 100% of the time.Berenzen said:TheLazyGeek said:Interesting...because I totally never knew this before...
Wait, 17? What a shit number of people that is. Well, let me tell you about MY "study" that took 20 people and we went on a three-day marathon at a LAN party and only 6 of us didn't make the full time. After that everyone got 6 hours of sleep and was ready to go again. This proves that humans don't actually need sleep at all except very sparingly and only for a few hours every other day.The 17 participants played a newly released...
I would like a headline now.A Smooth Criminal said:The sampling size is terrible.. But playing fast paced shooters that get your adrenaline going immediately before you go sleep is hardly going to help you is it?King of Asgaard said:Ummm, is no one else going to point out how terrible the sample size is?The study, which was conducted by Masters student Daniel King with supervision from child sleep psychologist Dr. Michael Gradisar, included 17 participants.
Because the sample size is nigh on abysmal.
Taking a handful of people is not what constitutes a proper study, you need at least a few hundred to have a certain degree of credibility, more if you're feeling sassy.
Honestly, he didn't even need a sampling size of 17. The guy could have just read an already existing book
No, it doesn't matter how large your sample size is as long as you have 95% certainty- where 95% of your test subjects fall in the first standard deviation of what you were testing. While sample size helps, it doesn't necessarily matter in the long run.King of Asgaard said:Ummm, is no one else going to point out how terrible the sample size is?The study, which was conducted by Masters student Daniel King with supervision from child sleep psychologist Dr. Michael Gradisar, included 17 participants.
Because the sample size is nigh on abysmal.
Taking a handful of people is not what constitutes a proper study, you need at least a few hundred to have a certain degree of credibility, more if you're feeling sassy.
Learn how research actually works before you go shitting on it. There is no lab in the world that has the money to get a sample size of hundreds of people, so if you expect that you need a massive sample size to determine something, then you must think that basically every scientific paper put out ever is invalid.
Yes, sample size matters. Sample size lends credibility to your results as the larger your sample size, the smaller the risk of results being artificially skewed by an anomalous trend within a small segment of the sample. Good, conclusive, representative research takes time and more than half a class-room full of people. Hacks and people trying to trump up numbers are the only people who do research like this and call it definitive. Any high-school statistics teacher will tell you that.