home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16 / NN_1992_16.iso / spool / bit / listserv / statl / 1201 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-07-27  |  1.1 KB  |  32 lines
  1. Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!NIHCU.BITNET!XIC
  3. Acknowledge-to:    XIC@NIHCU.BITNET
  4. X-Acknowledge-to:  XIC@NIHCU.BITNET
  5. Message-ID: <STAT-L%92072710052628@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
  6. Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
  7. Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:00:34 EDT
  8. Sender:       "STATISTICAL CONSULTING" <STAT-L@MCGILL1.BITNET>
  9. From:         XIC@NIHCU.BITNET
  10. Subject:      Judgmental sampling - reply
  11. Lines: 19
  12.  
  13. This note is in response to the query of John Wendell on
  14. judgmental vs. probability sampling.
  15.  
  16. The best discussion that I know of is in section 1.6 of the
  17. book by Raymond J. Jessen, Statistical Survey Techniques (John
  18. Wiley and Sons, 1978).
  19.  
  20. Jessen describes an experiment in which participants were
  21. asked to select stones from a population of 126 stones based
  22. on judgment.  They did better (in terms of mean weight, I
  23. believe) than a probability sample only when the sample size
  24. was less than 7.
  25.  
  26. from Michael P. Cohen, Mathematical Statistician
  27. Statistical Standards and Methodology Division
  28. National Center for Education Statistics
  29. Washington, DC 20208-5654
  30. Bitnet:  XIC@NIHCU
  31. Internet:  XIC@CU.NIH.GOV
  32.