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
you seem to
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
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 general
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 when N=1 and
here is an academic webpage
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 good
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 attack
