On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:52:08 +0200, "Bernhard Kuster"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[me] >
> > I think I am trying to say, gently, that your basic question doesn't
> > make very good sense to me; and it did not, to Dennis, either.
> > "Optimal" is one problematic word. Another problem is that
> >
> I think I am trying to say, gently, that your basic question doesn't
> make very good sense to me; and it did not, to Dennis, either.
> "Optimal" is one problematic word. Another problem is that
> you seem to ask about all research, in all of the world
> It might be a clever way to att
> what is the MINIMAL n needed to accomplish these ends" ... that might be
optimal if you are looking for the
> smallest n you can get by with ... but, optimal does not have to be
defined
> as such ...
Thanks for your comments. To be honest, for me the term "opitmal" (which
seems not to be a very
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:23:28 +0200, "Bernhard Kuster"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am interessted in the question of optimal sample size in general, not for
> a special statistical technique.
(a) There was a notable 1974 article on "Believability
ed to
accomplish these ends" ... that might be optimal if you are looking for the
smallest n you can get by with ... but, optimal does not have to be defined
as such ...
At 12:23 PM 10/1/01 +0200, Bernhard Kuster wrote:
>Hi
>
>I am interessted in the question of optimal sample size in
Hi
I am interessted in the question of optimal sample size in general, not for
a special statistical technique.
My questions: (1) What do I have to keep in mind if I compute optimal sample
size, what is relevant? (2) What are the classic studies and who has highly
influenced the subject? (3
