A sample size as small as 100 participants can give statistical significance and can be considered acceptable.So let me get this straight, they interviewed less than 300 people* in one localized area and called it a study?
SCIENCE!
*This is not mentioned in the story linked, but this study had 552 people, assuming equal distribution, would mean 276 gamers and 276 non-gamers.
A sample size as small as 100 participants can give statistical significance and can be considered acceptable.
Wow, really?
I don't know so I'll take your word for it but wow.
I mean, there's 300,000,000 or so people in America.
Seems like you'd need at least a tenth of a percent (or 30,000 or so people) to get anything like real data.
Now, I have to go back on something I said. Looking at this page, a sample size of 100 isn't good enough for a true blue study to say something with confidence. You need 500 participants. Because 500 participants grant a margin of error a little below 5%, meaning you are 95% certain the numbers are correct.Wow, really?
I don't know so I'll take your word for it but wow.
I mean, there's 300,000,000 or so people in America.
Seems like you'd need at least a tenth of a percent (or 30,000 or so people) to get anything like real data.
Bingo.Dire Bare said:And it's only one study. I'm sure the authors would be the first to tell you that more research needs to be done. That's how science works. It's impractical to expect one group of researchers in any field to do an exhaustive study that covers all possible permutations. That's why we have many groups of researchers working on smaller studies that over time add to the general body of scientific knowledge.
It could be a variable, but only in an indirect fashion.Gaming doesn't seem very related.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.