BuzzerBeater Forums

In order for that type of research to work the sample most be pulled from a homogeneous population, you grab a group, split it in two or more and subject the different groups to a change to observe the effect of the change.

Not really. It would defeat the whole purpose in having a double-blind study if you manipulated variables in your control group.

It works in a large volume to look at the overall effect, but all of the oddballs also need to be looked out and accounted for, for example-

I'll skip quoting your verbose analogies and commentary, and I think you went a little overboard in trying to make a a very simple point (that anomalous data can result in confirmation bias). Point taken.

There are many different approaches to experimentation in medicine. Some are quantitative and others are qualitative. A descriptive study for example, does not deal with the intentional manipulation of variables at all. I'm not going to debate the usefulness of a particular method of experimentation or how to structure it, because I think that is already jumping ahead. To start with, the basic assumption has been made here that inductive reasoning is more useful or appropriate.

As the saying goes, "If you only have a hammer"... PR manager's aren't a neurological disease. They are a bloody algorithm in a computer program with a finite number of parameters. One of the biggest reasons why deduction is commonly used in math is because there is a small number of unknowns. In medical science and many other fields you are dealing with a large or seemingly infinite number of unknowns where inductive observations are more useful.

I gavea long list of factors which impact attendance. Unfortunatley there are a lot of them. So it is getting similar to trying to put a pulse on an actual organism.

In the same way folded paper is similar to an F-22 Raptor, sure.

I am not against trying to figure it out anyway, but since as you point out it is a finite mathematical problem, we might as well as identify and account for the variables.

Might as well pick out what animals we are going to test on. That is also very important

I think you guys scared the OP off.

Or bored him to death.

I know full well that it is an easy study.
If I get this information from 200 managers, I'll have a pretty good idea.

My intention isn't to find out everything perfectly, but the most accurate way possible.

As you say, there are many influencing factors, but how more data ask fewer teams are going to send me your details and prefer to gather data from many teams that are in short supply, instead of receiving data from a few teams.

To conduct a survey, so there is minimal relative error that meet the most people possible.

It is better to interview 2,000,000 people more or less than 200,000 respondents who interviewed very well.

My intention is to find the% of a public relations from one level to another.

Develop my study as follows:
1. I ask many USER data.
2. Together all data and keep it in my working folder.
3. Do a study on the book and I can publish the study and make a hypothesis about the outcome.
[For example, I get this data:
·100 teams to increase the technical staff have been increased by 2%
·40 teams have been increased by 3%
·20 teams have been increased by 1%
·40 teams have been down by 2%].
4. Find out if this hypothesis is true.
5. I ask again, data teams are interviewed to see if the same profits or losses previously.
6.Finally if my hypothesis is confirmed, the study ended.
7. If my hypothesis isn't confirmed, I will repeat some steps.

In the other study, which is to find the% of more and less to lose / gain in the pavilion as the global rankings'm studying computers that have not changed their public relations.

In This thread:
(163800.1)

Good luck with that.

I had a level 6 PR guy for a bit, and after a few weeks I noticed that there really wasn't much improvement and got rid of him. Unless you are in div. I or II I don't think anyone should have more than a level 4 guy.