LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 2002)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:37:42 -0600
Reply-To:     Judy Brown <Judy.Brown@state.co.us>
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Judy Brown <Judy.Brown@state.co.us>
Subject:      Adjectives Commonly Associated with Correlation Coeficients
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Hi. Do you know of any articles or books that provide guidelines for appropriate adjectives to assign to correlation results. I used to have an article that gave some guidelines, but I can no longer find it and I'd like to have a source for such terms. For example, something like... .9 and better might be described as excellent .8 as good .6 -. 7 as moderate .5 as low .4 and below as poor

I have received a draft report from a contractor in which interrater reliability of r=.96 was described as 'high' as was a r=.8. Then they went on to describe both of these results as 'very good' interrater reliability. Later in the same report, the phrase 'highly correlated' was used to describe r=.53 and r=.48 for a concurrent validity comparison of the summary score of two assessment tools. I would like to ask our contractor for more consistency in the adjectives they are using to describe the correlation coeficients within their draft report, but I'd like to have a reference document on which to base this recommendation. Do you know of any references that I might utilize for this purpose?

Thank you, Judy Brown (303/866-7443)


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SPSSX-L page