RE: chi square but very disparate sample sizes

Posted by sgthomson99 on Oct 24, 2014; 9:55pm
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/chi-square-but-very-disparate-sample-sizes-tp5727676p5727693.html

Thanks for the reply, Art. 
The groups don't come out significantly different in any meaningful ways that we are able to examine with the data we have available.  The discussion among the managers is centering exactly on your question -- what difference to policy and practice does this small difference make, is it clinically meaningful and so on.  The effect is very small.
 
Many thanks for your help.

Susan 

 

---

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:51:31 -0700
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: chi square but very disparate sample sizes

The probability that the apparent difference is due to the vagaries of sampling is zero. IFF you do not want to act as if this were (note subjunctive-contrary-to-fact)  a sample across time the size of the diffeeeeeeeence is still tiny     for most purposes.

What difference wrt policy/practice/theory/understanding does this difference make.  Are the groups dissimilar in any meaningful     ways such       as climate,      occupations   subject to more frequent contact with strangers, etc.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/chi-square-but-very-disparate-sample-sizes-tp5727676p5727692.html

To unsubscribe from chi square but very disparate sample sizes, click here.
NAML