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:         Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:13:46 -0400
Reply-To:     "Snider-Lotz, Tom" <TSnider-Lotz@qwiz.com>
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Snider-Lotz, Tom" <TSnider-Lotz@qwiz.com>
Subject:      Re: Adjectives Commonly Associated with Correlation Coeficients
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Yes, it really depends on the situation. I'm involved in developing employment selection tests. If the correlation between scores on two forms of the same test was .3, we'd be alarmed; but if the correlation between test scores and a job performance rating was .3, we'd feel OK about it. As Nels said, Weak-strong would have more general applicability than Poor-Excellent.

Often users reserve judgment until they've taken a step beyond the correlation coefficient. They might find more value in computing such things as variance accounted for, reduction in error of estimation, or financial implications.

>-----Original Message----- >From: Nels Tomlinson [mailto:nels_tomlinson@labor.state.ak.us] >Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:51 AM >To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >Subject: Re: Adjectives Commonly Associated with Correlation >Coeficients > > >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) >


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