![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu1.png)
![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu2.png)
![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu3.png)
![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu4.png)
英文标题: | On the Sample Size and the Response Rate |
摘要: | 本文以事实为依据,对《应答率的意义及其他》一文的质疑进行了回应。作者指出,首先,"应文"质疑的出发点是不恰当的;其次,笔者关于调查回收率的定义与福勒的定义完全一致;第三,笔者对样本规模的定义、以及对CGSS2003调查项目中的样本规模——5900的定义和理解也是清楚的和正确的,笔者并没有"误读"这一样本规模的含义。第四,真正错误理解和定义"样本规模"含义的恰恰是"应文"的作者。由于"应文"作者不恰当地将"样本规模"的概念变换成"实际发生的访谈数量",不恰当地在有关"样本规模"的讨论中引入"实地调查过程"的内容,因而形成了对样本规模含义的不正确理解,做出了对样本规模含义和计算的不正确划分,同时也导致了CGSS2003的样本规模计算以及其他调查项目回收率统计中的混乱现象。 |
英文摘要: | The paper responsesto the critique by the paper “The Significance of Response Rates and Others” .The author points out firstly that the critique' s starting point is improper .The author arguesthat the definition of the response rate given by himself is the same as that given by Foler, and the author' s understandings to the concept of sample size , and to the sample size of CGSS2003 are clear and correct, in other words, the author does not misunderstand the meaning of the sample size.The paper points out that it' s the author of the article “ The Significance of Response Rates and Others” who misunderstands it by changing the conception of the “ sample size” to “ the number of people interviewed” , and has improperly introduced the “ course of survey” to the discussion of the “sample size” .At the same time , it brings confusion about the sample size of CGSS2003 . |
作者: | 风笑天; |
作者单位: | 南京大学社会学系; |
期刊: | 社会学研究 |
年.期:页码 | 2007.6:195-212 |
中图分类号: | |
文章编号: | |
关键词: | 调查研究; 样本规模; 回收率; |
英文关键词: | |
项目基金: | |
欢迎阅读《社会学研究》!您是该文第1613位读者! |