They literally are saying that. They literally say that because the sample size is so small, the standard error of the estimates is extremely high. LIterally.
No, it isn't because they use much larger sample sizes throughout the rest of the report.
Right in the link you provided it shows that the survey included over 150,000 people.
When it comes to a sample size of less than 10, even they are saying that!
Newsflash: Not only can you ignore this thread if you don't like the content, but you can open any other thread you like. Interestingly enough almost all of them contain bickering. ![Roll Eyes ::)](http://www.getbig.com/boards/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)
And is it really a no-win situation? Do you honestly believe that there's any survey that interviews 150,000 people then only counts 10 of those people in the name of accuracy? Do you honestly believe that a survey of 10 people provides an accurate assessment of ANYTHING nationally?
You're absolutely wrong. Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. It's that simple. They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong. What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS. Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated. It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba. Zippity doo daa.
In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.
What a liar. Reread your mathematics thread. I explained it all to you.