[sjducb]

In other words: "Study" was not statistically significant, all results should be ignored.

[rhaway84773]

In other words, as the article says, the study is “suggestive and not conclusive” and others should also be doing similar research.

[wokwokwok]

>>> others should also be doing similar research.

>> BTW, Nick Bloom at Stanford and others have done extensive research with thousands of people on remote and hybrid work here, and here…

^ from the article

> Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which about 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick-days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction and experienced less turnover, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell.

^ from the linked paper.

…but hey, go the statistically irrelevant one to share with people if you want a cool link to prove whatever point you want to make with it.

[sjducb]

You only get to say that when there are no other studies. If other good studies exist (which they do) then your study should add something. That means that your study should either replicate an existing study with similar or greater statistical power, or investigate something that the existing studies are not testing. This study does neither. It re-asks questions that have been answered with such low statistical power that the answers are meaningless.

[ekianjo]

more cherry picked than anything else, seeing the minuscule sample size and the obvious categorical bias

[colpabar]

All the experts agree!

[Zurrrrr]

Or at the least 7 out of 10 dentists agree

[teeray]

Expert tested, landlord approved.