2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01052.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The large sample size fallacy

Abstract: Effect sizes should generally be calculated and presented along with p-values for statistically significant results, and observed effect sizes should be discussed qualitatively through direct and explicit comparisons with the effects in related literature.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
94
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(21 reference statements)
2
94
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With regard to total losses, five months show greater losses (February, March, and August and slightly fewer total losses in September and December) and only one month shows a noticeably low total loss, namely July. However, despite these easy-toread statistical differences, they are not statistically significant because the sample size is relatively small (Lantz 2013), which means that with the data used in this paper cannot either prove or disprove H1. Overall, it is possible to state that the temperature aggression hypothesis has low validity for understanding violence in cargo thefts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…With regard to total losses, five months show greater losses (February, March, and August and slightly fewer total losses in September and December) and only one month shows a noticeably low total loss, namely July. However, despite these easy-toread statistical differences, they are not statistically significant because the sample size is relatively small (Lantz 2013), which means that with the data used in this paper cannot either prove or disprove H1. Overall, it is possible to state that the temperature aggression hypothesis has low validity for understanding violence in cargo thefts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…However, regarding the normality, significance can be detected easily in large samples [25,27] and also normality tests detect nonnormality very easily in large samples. There is no easy answer as to where the cut-off between small and large sample lies, although N > 30 is in most cases considered as 'large enough' to detect a normal distribution, but the cut-off for not finding a normal distribution due to large sample size is not known just as it is not known at what sample size parametric tests are usable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Schoenfeld residuals were calculated and found significant if the P value of the Schoenfeld test exceeded 0.05. Residual plots were visually inspected in case of a significant Schoenfeld test to assess whether it was caused by the large sample size,20 known to bias the test statistics, or a violation of the proportionality assumption. Phenotypes of HRR were standardized to a mean of 0 and SD of 1 to allow for comparisons between the different HRR measurements.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%