1,034 is still statistically significant regardless, but what I'd say is more important is the methodology. Is it self reported? Who collected the data? Was it tied to real absence days? If I were in high school and they passed around a survey of why I missed school, I wouldn't say "I skipped school last week with my friends to go to discount ride day at the state fair." I'd probably check "Anxiety" next to that day of absence.
You make good points about the importance of demographic information, sample representativeness, and generalizability. Just a suggestion: don't speed up the parts of your video where you're providing hypotheticals or explanations. They help develop your points.
I would say to people, whenever you see any research reported on in the news, go back to the original study and look at their methodology. I get that EdWeek might want to keep their methods proprietary, but that's just not good science.
1,034 is still statistically significant regardless, but what I'd say is more important is the methodology. Is it self reported? Who collected the data? Was it tied to real absence days? If I were in high school and they passed around a survey of why I missed school, I wouldn't say "I skipped school last week with my friends to go to discount ride day at the state fair." I'd probably check "Anxiety" next to that day of absence.
You make good points about the importance of demographic information, sample representativeness, and generalizability. Just a suggestion: don't speed up the parts of your video where you're providing hypotheticals or explanations. They help develop your points.
I would say to people, whenever you see any research reported on in the news, go back to the original study and look at their methodology. I get that EdWeek might want to keep their methods proprietary, but that's just not good science.
Completely agree! This is great advice!!