```Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:47:33 -0500 Reply-To: ANDRES ALBERTO BURGA LEON Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" From: ANDRES ALBERTO BURGA LEON Subject: Re: Size or significance of correlations Comments: To: Humphrey Paulie In-Reply-To: <129416.95627.qm@web45113.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; Hello Humphrey: In my opinion, we need to distinguish between statistical significance and practical significance. The statistical significance only means that this correlation is expected to be different from 0 in the population. You should also look at the size of the correlation considering the field in which you are working. Is your correlation similar to that found in other studies using this variables? This correlation have any practical meaning? With a correaltion as low as 0.15 the variance of one variable explains 2.25% of the variance from the other variable, wich is very low. Kindly Mg. Andrés Burga León Coordinador de Análisis e Informática Unidad de Medición de la Calidad Educativa Ministerio de Educación del Perú Calle El Comercio s/n (espalda del Museo de la Nación) Lima 41 Perú Teléfono 615-5840 Humphrey Paulie Enviado por: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" 12/05/2010 06:01 a.m. Por favor, responda a Humphrey Paulie Para SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU cc Asunto Size or significance of correlations Dear all, I have acorrealted a neumber of varibales (Pearson) and have found correlations as low as .15 to be significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed). My sample size is 280. I dont know how to interpret this. the coefficinets are very small however statistically significant. Which one should I trust, the size of the coefficients or the statistical significnace? I will be thankful for comments. Cheers Humphrey [text/html] ```

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