Boys Hurt Themselves More Often Playing With Wii

Status
Not open for further replies.

NuclearShadow

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2007
670
0
18,940
boys accounted for 49 out of the 92 motion-control-related injuries.

This is a valid study how? When working with such small numbers and the randomness of accidents I would hardly see this as a valid scientific study. I don't even doubt that boys are more likely to get hurt as they are more likely to be playing games that require more aggressive movements however if your going to try to make a valid study its going to require much more than 92 incidents.
 

Silmarunya

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
390
0
18,930
[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]This is a valid study how? When working with such small numbers and the randomness of accidents I would hardly see this as a valid scientific study. I don't even doubt that boys are more likely to get hurt as they are more likely to be playing games that require more aggressive movements however if your going to try to make a valid study its going to require much more than 92 incidents.[/citation]

Rule 1 in the statistics handbook: the number of participants is irrelevant if the subjects are chosen randomly and represent all relevant groups. If this was the case, even 92 could be enough to give a relevant picture (although with a higher margin of error than a larger group would have provided).

 

Zenthar

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
250
0
18,960
I wonder if boys hurt themselves more than girls doing any activity final. How about sport injuries? Maybe we just tend to do everything a bit over the top ...
 
G

Guest

Guest
49 out of 92 isn't that much more, and video games have always been male dominant. So what is so amazing or surprising about this?
 

neoverdugo

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2010
40
0
18,580
Oh god, not this again. Nintendo placed warning about this on every game they release to the public. The reason why people get hurt is because they are very stupid. I own a Wii and i never had an accident because i have extra grip on the wii-mote along with the strap.
 
G

Guest

Guest
LOL with such a small sample size of course one will be seen as more likely. even then 49 out of the 92 is only 53%. Give it a higher sample size and it'll be closer to 50%.
 

aznguy0028

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2007
72
0
18,580
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]Rule 1 in the statistics handbook: the number of participants is irrelevant if the subjects are chosen randomly and represent all relevant groups. If this was the case, even 92 could be enough to give a relevant picture (although with a higher margin of error than a larger group would have provided).[/citation]
Uhh... a larger sample size would make the study more valid. What you are suggesting is, if every subject represented all relevant groups and chosen randomly, a study with 30 participants would be just as valid as a study with 1000 instead? The reason why larger sample sizes make the study more valid is b/c a larger sample size can eliminate or diminish any bias or unknown variables. The whole point of statistical studies is to lower the margin of error into acceptable ranges so any changes in the results of your studies is from variables that you have control over (so you know they are indeed variables that is affecting the study and not just some unknown variables or extreme outliers). Therefore, you need a larger sample size to conclusively suggest anything....
 

Darkk

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2003
253
0
18,930
Just get on YouTube and search for something like "Man Breaks His TV with the Wiimote". Plenty of videos to back this story up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.