Michael Slovin in 1960 (cited in Guilford & Frucher, 1973) pioneered the sample size determination formula thus: N/1+Ne2. He received no credit for this pioneering efforts. Seven years later in 1967 to be precise , Taro Yamene made improvement to this formula thus : N/1+N(e)2. He had since received tremendous credits by way of acknowledgements. The question becomes: are scholars and academic world fair to Michael Sloven who received no credit for the space work he did in this regard?
Thank you and cheers.
Dr. Matthias O. Nkuda
Hello Matthias,
I don't see the two formulae as being any different, though their notation is frequently given incorrectly (based on 3 full minutes of internet searching).
Each one's formula is:
n = N / (1 + N * e^2)
where N is population size, e is acceptable margin of error (e.g., .05 would represent +/- 5%), and n is the computed sample size. The symbol, ^, indicates raising to the power (e.g., e^2 = e-squared).
There are many instances wherein someone who has "re-invented the wheel" gets the citations whereas the wheel inventor does not.
If it turns out the the re-invented wheel improves upon the original wheel, that deserves recognition as well. If it's the same, then current authors should continue to point out when prior work exists and cite the prior work; this at least educates others of the issue.
Good luck with your work.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/sample-size-calculation-overview-methods.html
Permit me to seize this opportunity to thank all who have contributed answers to the question I raised. In as much as I have not had access to all the answers, for example Daniel Wright's, I cannot but appreciate you all. It is undeniably true that Michael Slovin's work was a stepping stone upon which Taro Yamene's work was later built. Creating an original work is comparatively far more tasking mentally and otherwise than making improvement to the same work. Pursuant to this line of thought, I hold a humble opinion that Michael Slovin deserves some degree of recognition however modest the same may be. Thank you all and cheers.
Dr. Matthias O. Nkuda
See my response to https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_reliable_is_the_Richard_Geiger_equation_in_determining_sample_size_Is_there_a_reference_for_this_equation
Regarding "...are scholars and academic world fair to Michael Sloven who received no credit for the space work he did in this regard?" I'd say that since it was just a special case of a well-known general formula, which actually has caused problems with misuse, no credit need be given to Slovin or Yamene or Yasmin or whomever.
In medicine, I think a new disease is named after the first patient who is diagnosed with it, not the medical researcher or physician who first recognizes it. In statistics, few people have their names on anything, and if they do, I think it likely someone else assigned it to them.
Note that the deff does not have Leslie Kish's name on it, but it is well known that he first suggested it. Calibration of survey weights has no name on it ... but I think it was first proposed by Deville and Särndal in 1992. I think cosmetic calibration was proposed by Ken Brewer.
OK Phil. Then how does that change the point I made pertaining to this discussion?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Sampling Design
- Sample Size