Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:50:56 -0800
Reply-To: Nels Tomlinson <nels_tomlinson@labor.state.ak.us>
Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Nels Tomlinson <nels_tomlinson@labor.state.ak.us>
Subject: Re: Adjectives Commonly Associated with Correlation Coeficients
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0210100919260.4114-100000@humus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Strong and weak might be better adjectives for describing correlation. They
are the ones I normally use.
Are adjectives really the way to go, though? There are two questions one
can ask about a reported correlation: ``Is it statistically significant?''
and ``Is it meaningful (in terms of the subject discipline)?''. A
correlation of 0.3 which is both statistically significant and meaningful
might be described as weak by some scale of adjectives, but that might not
be the best way to describe it.
Hope this helps,
Nels Tomlinson
-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf Of
R. Allan Reese
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:23 AM
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Adjectives Commonly Associated with Correlation Coeficients
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Judy Brown wrote:
> appropriate adjectives to assign to correlation results.
> 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
Whether these descriptions are appropriate depends on a value judgment of
the association. As a deliberately vivid example, the serial sniper will
know how many bullets s/he has fired and what the hit rate has been, but
s/he and I would differ on whether to call the association good.
R. Allan Reese Email: r.a.reese@gri.hull.ac.uk
Associate Manager Direct voice: +44 1482 466845
Graduate Research Institute Voice messages: +44 1482 466844
Hull University, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Fax: +44 1482 466436
====================================================================
Hull University: one of the "Access elite" (THES 18/1/02)
Widened access / Low drop out / Excellent teaching / Excellent research
...
Hull University: one of the hardest funding cuts by HEFCE (THES 3/3/02)
