Abstract

The editors of a special issue of The American Statistician stated: “Regardless of whether it was ever useful, a declaration of “statistical significance” has today become meaningless.” This echoes the author's view, as “statistical significance” has been conflated with substantive significance. However, the author respectfully disagrees with the editors' call for “don’t use it.” With the help of relatively simple graphs and tables, this author demonstrates that small sample sizes (n < 1000) require Pearson’s correlation coefficients to be screened for statistical significance (p <.05) to reduce the number of effect size errors that would otherwise be considered substantively significant under a true null hypothesis. It's crucial to note here that the null hypothesis is not merely assumed true but is indeed known to be true.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.