info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Q obtaining statistics from multiple samples
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Cosine
May 23, 2021, 10:50:46 AM5/23/21
to
Hi:
To have enough statistical power, we have to have the size of the sample large enough. What if we have a set of samples of the same type, but the size of each of the samples is not large? Do we have some ways to combine this et of small samples into a large sample? Or more generally, do we have some ways to obtain the statistics with enough power by some clever ways of using this set of samples?
To have enough statistical power, we have to have the size of the sample large enough. What if we have a set of samples of the same type, but the size of each of the samples is not large? Do we have some ways to combine this et of small samples into a large sample? Or more generally, do we have some ways to obtain the statistics with enough power by some clever ways of using this set of samples?
Rich Ulrich
May 23, 2021, 1:34:13 PM5/23/21
to
On Sun, 23 May 2021 07:50:44 -0700 (PDT), Cosine <ase...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What comes immediately to my mind -- technically, "multiple
samples" describes the structure of multi-clinic studies (sites,
doctors) and of surveys (individual interviewers).
The analyses eventually want to pool the results. Before pooled
analyses, the clinics or doctors or interviewers are examined to
see if there are notable differences - "notable" meaning, in effect
size, not necessarily by statistical significance. That is a look both
at interesting outcomes and at sample characteristics.
If there are different demographics "between samples" among the
cases or interviewees, that has to be taken into account in the
analyses (if necessary, and if possible) and the write-up (always).
The difficult write-up is where there is "confounding" between
characteristics and location and interesting results. You may
have to make logical arguments about which factors should
be controlled for as statistical factors or covariates, and in which
order; or which results are presented as distinct for distinct groups.
Of course, if the N were large enough, you would be able to
test for interactions - but you are positing subsamples that
are small enough to have small power. So, effect sizes need to
be examined.
--
Rich Ulrich
wrote:
samples" describes the structure of multi-clinic studies (sites,
doctors) and of surveys (individual interviewers).
The analyses eventually want to pool the results. Before pooled
analyses, the clinics or doctors or interviewers are examined to
see if there are notable differences - "notable" meaning, in effect
size, not necessarily by statistical significance. That is a look both
at interesting outcomes and at sample characteristics.
If there are different demographics "between samples" among the
cases or interviewees, that has to be taken into account in the
analyses (if necessary, and if possible) and the write-up (always).
The difficult write-up is where there is "confounding" between
characteristics and location and interesting results. You may
have to make logical arguments about which factors should
be controlled for as statistical factors or covariates, and in which
order; or which results are presented as distinct for distinct groups.
Of course, if the N were large enough, you would be able to
test for interactions - but you are positing subsamples that
are small enough to have small power. So, effect sizes need to
be examined.
--
Rich Ulrich
David Jones
May 23, 2021, 1:44:52 PM5/23/21
to
access to all the samples but only to results published for each study.
Many of the same concerns apply, so it may be worth looking at
discussions of "meta-analysis" ... for example, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis .
0 new messages