(This is the redo version, guess it would be so much worse 😦 )
Here we go, another question, ”Do you need statistics to understand your data?”
What is Data?
-individual facts, statistics, or items of information. Example: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
-a body of facts; information.Example: Additional data is available from the president of the firm.
Data also refers to quantitative or qualitative attributes of a variable/set of variables.
Back to the topic…
Do you need statistics to understand your data?
With the first-hand data of your research/study, it is possible that you could still understand roughly what is the actual outcome.For instance, a product satisfaction survey received 130 replies that 82 participants out of 130 participants were satisfy with the product, so from this stage we could still tell that quite a lot(over a half) of participants were happy with the product,without doing any further statistical test or find out the % rate.
However, when it comes to psychology data-analysis, without the ‘help’ of statistics it would become hard to analysis and interpret the results. WHY? Many psychology studies usually would have testing hypothesis (enable both experimenters/viewers to understand what is the study about and testing on.) For example, we have done a mini psychology project during A-Level, we have a jar of marbles and went around the college to ask student to guess how many marbles were there, with the condition of we ‘made-up’ some random numbers on the record sheet and the real participants could easily see the ‘previous answers’. We were testing whatever participants would affected by the ‘made-up’ answer. The testing hypothesis was H1 = the participants were affected by the ‘made-up’ answer. And the null hypothesis was H0 = the participants were not affected by it. We got two set of data, one group was done with the ‘made-up’ answer and the other group was done in normal condition. Then we used a statistical test(ANOVA test)[I cannot remember t clearly but should be ANOVA 🙂 ]to analyze it, the p was set p = 0.05(Critical Value = 5 %). It was significant that participants were affected by the ‘previous answer’ at the level of 5%.(The participants were affected by the ‘previous answer’ and it was significant too.) Without the statistical test, we might still be able to tell that participants were affected in the ‘made-up’ condition however it was not reliable, not presentable and it would not be significant.
In conclusion, we do need statistics to understand the data more in depth. Without the statistical data we could not be able draw out a reliable result. Having a valid statistical data would be supportive to the research.
(Please feel free to comment, discuss or debate again. It is a re-do version and I could not recall many important parts that I wrote in the first one, it is really depressing:'( I could feel its so much worse than the original one and its a hard topic to me too. But I tried my best to do the best I could in the 1/2 hours or less to finish it off )
This entry was posted in Psychology weekly blog
. Bookmark the permalink