Please note that Internet Explorer version 8.x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. Please refer to this blog post for more information.

Please note that Internet Explorer version 8.x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. Please refer to this blog post for more information.

When conducting research, quality sampling may be characterized by the number and selection of subjects or observations. Obtaining a sample size that is appropriate in both regards is critical for many reasons. Most importantly, a large sample size is more representative of the population, limiting the influence of outliers or extreme observations. A sufficiently large sample size is also necessary to produce results among variables that are significantly different. (1) For qualitative studies, where the goal is to “reduce the chances of discovery failure,” a large sample size broadens the range of possible data and forms a better picture for analysis. (2)

Sample size is also important for economic and ethical reasons. As Russell Lenth from the University of Iowa explains, “An under-sized study can be a waste of resources for not having the capability to produce useful results, while an over-sized one uses more resources than are necessary. In an experiment involving human or animal subjects, sample size is a pivotal issue for ethical reasons. An under-sized experiment exposes the subjects to potentially harmful treatments without advancing knowledge. In an over-sized experiment, an unnecessary number of subjects are exposed to a potentially harmful treatment, or are denied a potentially beneficial one.” (3)

There are many different ways to determine an appropriate sample size. For in-depth qualitative studies, Abbie Griffin and John Hauser found that “20-30 in-depth interviews are necessary to uncover 90-95% of all customer needs for the product categories studied.” (5) Thus, the authors determined that a sample size of 30 respondents would provide a reasonable starting point. This number is corroborated by Dr. Saiful, a clinical researcher, who states that a “sample size larger than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for most research,” adding that sub-samples also require at least 30 observations when applicable. (6)

Please note that Internet Explorer version 8.x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. Please refer to this blog post for more information.

When conducting research, quality sampling may be characterized by the number and selection of subjects or observations. Obtaining a sample size that is appropriate in both regards is critical for many reasons. Most importantly, a large sample size is more representative of the population, limiting the influence of outliers or extreme observations. A sufficiently large sample size is also necessary to produce results among variables that are significantly different. (1) For qualitative studies, where the goal is to “reduce the chances of discovery failure,” a large sample size broadens the range of possible data and forms a better picture for analysis. (2)

Sample size is also important for economic and ethical reasons. As Russell Lenth from the University of Iowa explains, “An under-sized study can be a waste of resources for not having the capability to produce useful results, while an over-sized one uses more resources than are necessary. In an experiment involving human or animal subjects, sample size is a pivotal issue for ethical reasons. An under-sized experiment exposes the subjects to potentially harmful treatments without advancing knowledge. In an over-sized experiment, an unnecessary number of subjects are exposed to a potentially harmful treatment, or are denied a potentially beneficial one.” (3)

There are many different ways to determine an appropriate sample size. For in-depth qualitative studies, Abbie Griffin and John Hauser found that “20-30 in-depth interviews are necessary to uncover 90-95% of all customer needs for the product categories studied.” (5) Thus, the authors determined that a sample size of 30 respondents would provide a reasonable starting point. This number is corroborated by Dr. Saiful, a clinical researcher, who states that a “sample size larger than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for most research,” adding that sub-samples also require at least 30 observations when applicable. (6)

The group got together to look at the boulder they needed to move. The thing must have been about 200 pounds, but there were three of them, and surely they could lift it. The more they thought about it, the more they realized they needed more people. Each person went off and gathered more people to come back and help them move the boulder. Now the group had 10 people in it, much larger than it was before.

As the group began to try to lift the boulder, some members of the group could see that others were not trying to help and were just going through the motions. Some members just seemed to lose who they were and blended into the group, leaving their individuality behind. Others tried harder than we thought they might because the group was watching them. In the end, though, as they started to lift the boulder, the group was all thinking the same way and actually started to move the thing off the ground.

What we have just experienced is the full range of group performance issues as they relate to group size. There are several dynamics in place when groups grow in size, and understanding those dynamics is important to working in, leading or being part of a group.

A Study of Size Effects in the Fire Performance of Beds


How Size Affects Group Performance - study.com

Posted by 2018 article

51+FaTJiFHL