I've been asked to define the design for a study of a large food distribution organization. There are approximately equal numbers of new distribution method sites (grocery style) with traditional distribution method sites, about 33 in each group. Sites self-selected into one method or the other. The total number of sites comprises the population served by the organiztion. The question I've been posed is why should they do a statistical analysis given that the entire population will be included. My thoughts are that if they 1) consider the population they serve is not the entire population of persons who need this type of service in the area (there are other distribution agencies), 2) consider applying the findings to future decisions, and/or 3) consider that the sites within methods will differ in results, they really need to do a statistical analysis. Thoughts? Thanks, all. Hope you're staying healthy. Brian Brian G. Dates, M.A. Consultant in Program Evaluation, Research, and Statistics 248-229-2865 email:[hidden email] |
You are generally right - If they want to draw inferences
"statistically," they want statistics.
In particular, though - How serious is that handicap, that
the methods were "self-selected" by the sites? If that is
serious, then reporting an apparent statistical superiority
of one method could be grossly misleading.
On the other hand, 33 for each method (if I follow that right)
does not give a lot of power for multiple-group comparisons.
What you could say, at the least, is that the visible difference
between two methods (taking them two at a time) is NOT beyond
what one would expect by chance. - for equal N comparisons,
the p-value can serve as a surrogate for "effect size", if you
can't show effect size otherwise.
As with other observational studies, you can only try to
"account for" other sources of variance, by covarying or
including other factors in the design. That might be an important
thing some statistics could help. That is, if testing does suggest
some differences, do those differences get reduced or wiped
out by controlling for other factors?
For observational studies, any findings (of differences, or less often
of similarities) can be argued as being due to the self-selection.
--
Rich Ulrich
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion <[hidden email]> on behalf of Brian Dates <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:18 PM To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Analyzing Data from the Entire "Population" I've been asked to define the design for a study of a large food distribution organization. There are approximately equal numbers of new distribution method sites (grocery style) with traditional
distribution method sites, about 33 in each group. Sites self-selected into one method or the other. The total number of sites comprises the population served by the organiztion. The question I've been posed is why should they do a statistical analysis given
that the entire population will be included. My thoughts are that if they 1) consider the population they serve is not the entire population of persons who need this type of service in the area (there are other distribution agencies), 2) consider applying
the findings to future decisions, and/or 3) consider that the sites within methods will differ in results, they really need to do a statistical analysis.
Thoughts?
Thanks, all. Hope you're staying healthy.
Brian
Brian G. Dates, M.A.
Consultant in Program Evaluation, Research, and Statistics
248-229-2865
email:[hidden email]
|
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |