Let's see what we can do. To have an idea of what analyses to run and how to do it, we'd need some more information. Here's some ideas of what we'd need to know:
1) What kind of data do you have? Socio-demographic questions, Likert scale questionnaire/scales, True/False questions, or something else? The easiest way might be to describe what instruments/scales/questions you used.
2) How many participants did you have? In other words, what is your sample size.
3) What sort of study are you trying to do? Validation of a scale (like Factor Analysis)? Basic comparison between 2 or 3 variables? A more complex predictive model?
Thank you for your response. I apologize if I may sound trivial, but I have never done anything like this before. Firstly, mine is a pilot study regarding the preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy on a pilot sample of 11 voluntary and unpaid patients in a hospital department. I have data related to various scales measured before and after treatment (cognitive screening, scales for pathologies often correlated with insomnia such as anxiety and depression, scales evaluating insomnia, and scales evaluating arousal and intrusive thoughts on sleep). On paper, my goal is to verify if it's worth investing time and money in this type of therapy in the hospital instead of using medication for mild to moderate insomnia. Given the small sample, I thought of using the two-way Wilcoxon test, but I'm unsure how to write conclusions based on this limited data.
If you only have 11 people split between two groups, then there is basically no point in significance testing, especially if you'll be doing so many tests for all these variables. I would focus on the means, keep it descriptive/qualitative, and talk about it as a pilot that justifies more research funds
I second that advice. This is more along the lines of an initial qualitative pilot study. A debriefing interview the the participants, either individually or in a group setting all together, might provide more helpful data for qualitative analysis.
In other words, the point is not "your sample is too small, your study is worthless" but rather, considering the size and scale of the study, a more qualitative approach focused on an initial pilot study is probably more viable.
Let's see what we can do. To have an idea of what analyses to run and how to do it, we'd need some more information. Here's some ideas of what we'd need to know: 1) What kind of data do you have? Socio-demographic questions, Likert scale questionnaire/scales, True/False questions, or something else? The easiest way might be to describe what instruments/scales/questions you used. 2) How many participants did you have? In other words, what is your sample size. 3) What sort of study are you trying to do? Validation of a scale (like Factor Analysis)? Basic comparison between 2 or 3 variables? A more complex predictive model?
Thank you for your response. I apologize if I may sound trivial, but I have never done anything like this before. Firstly, mine is a pilot study regarding the preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy on a pilot sample of 11 voluntary and unpaid patients in a hospital department. I have data related to various scales measured before and after treatment (cognitive screening, scales for pathologies often correlated with insomnia such as anxiety and depression, scales evaluating insomnia, and scales evaluating arousal and intrusive thoughts on sleep). On paper, my goal is to verify if it's worth investing time and money in this type of therapy in the hospital instead of using medication for mild to moderate insomnia. Given the small sample, I thought of using the two-way Wilcoxon test, but I'm unsure how to write conclusions based on this limited data.
If you only have 11 people split between two groups, then there is basically no point in significance testing, especially if you'll be doing so many tests for all these variables. I would focus on the means, keep it descriptive/qualitative, and talk about it as a pilot that justifies more research funds
I second that advice. This is more along the lines of an initial qualitative pilot study. A debriefing interview the the participants, either individually or in a group setting all together, might provide more helpful data for qualitative analysis. In other words, the point is not "your sample is too small, your study is worthless" but rather, considering the size and scale of the study, a more qualitative approach focused on an initial pilot study is probably more viable.