It is quite possible for a study or a set of studies not to reach
statistical significance because of small n's. Yet when combined in a
meta-analysis there is a significant effect size. I heard Frank Schmidt
talk about this advocating the removal of statistical significance and
replacing it with
While it is true that statistical differences (i.e., real differences) are
not always functionally different (e.g., a real difference of a couple of
IQ points has no functional (clinincal) significance), the issue can be
more complicated than just that. Many years ago I springboarded off Paul
y, September 28, 2000 12:33 PM
To: John W. Kulig; DAP Louw (Sielkunde)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Clinical vs statistical significance
At 09:42 AM 9/28/00 -0400, John W. Kulig wrote:
(snip)
Say, isn't it time we revived our discussion about how awkward the term
"significa
Dear Tipsters,
Michael wrote:
What is wrong with "confidence level"? If we can reject the null hypothesis
at the .05 level, we are 95% confident that a real difference exists.
Strictly speaking, if alpha is set at .05 and p alpha, then we
reject Ho. We mean that in repeated sampling
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Clinical vs statistical significance
What is wr
Tipsters
Can someone please refer my to a source that will shed some light
on what precisely the "difference" between clinical and statistical
significance is. One often hears somebody saying: "Yes, there is
no statistical significance, but there is definitely a clinical
significance." To
From: "DAP Louw (Sielkunde)" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can someone please refer my to a source that will shed some light
on what precisely the "difference" between clinical and statistical
significance is. One often hears somebody saying: "Yes, there is
no statistical significance, but there is
DAP:
I suspect there are many different aspects to this question. Here is
part of it. Often something will be statistically significant (p.05) but
its practical effect small. e.g. first born children have higher IQ than
second borns (p.05) but the practical consequence is small because it is
Dear Tipsters,
John Kulig's post is excellent in distinguishing between different
kinds of significance. I would add that we could distingish three
kinds: statistical in the traditional sense, effect size (e.g., as
revealed by meta-analysis, where Cohens guidelines for d =( M1-M2)/s
are .2
"Michael J. Kane" wrote:
At 09:42 AM 9/28/00 -0400, John W. Kulig wrote:
(snip)
Say, isn't it time we revived our discussion about how awkward the term
"significance" is for p statements? For the "n th" time, wouldn't
_reliability_ be the better word? If p .05, we conclude the results of
10 matches
Mail list logo
