A previous note demonstrated that correctable bias is present when pilot sample information is used to establish sample size. Though Gillett claims that the Stein approach is a superior method for establishing sample size, we argue that it pursues an artificial goal, is impractical, and is subject to the underachievement effect that prompted our original note.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GillettRaphael (1989), “Confidence Interval Construction by Stein's Method: A Practical and Economic Approach to Sample Size Determination,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 237–40.
2.
SchefféHenry (1959), The Analysis of Variance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3.
SeelbinderB. M. (1953), “On Stein's Two-Stage Sampling Scheme,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24, 640–9.
4.
ShiftierRonald E. and ArthurJ. Adams (1987), “A Correction for Biasing Effects of Pilot Sample Size on Sample Size Determination,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 319–21.
5.
SteinCharles (1945), “A Two-Sample Test for a Linear Hypothesis Whose Power Is Independent of the Variance,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 16, 243–58.
6.
WilcoxRand R. (1984), “A Review of Exact Hypothesis Testing Procedures (and Selection Techniques) That Control Power Regardless of the Variances,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 34–48.
