Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basically, I've got a set of data (2 variables) and I've run a Spearmans rank correlation analysis on them.

    This has come up with a Spearmans rank of -0.44 but a two tail P of 0.06.

    Does this mean that there is a non-significant (as P>0.05) weak inverse correlation between the two or am I interpreting it incorrectly?

    Thanks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aphex.twin)
    Basically, I've got a set of data (2 variables) and I've run a Spearmans rank correlation analysis on them.

    This has come up with a Spearmans rank of -0.44 but a two tail P of 0.06.

    Does this mean that there is a non-significant (as P>0.05) weak inverse correlation between the two or am I interpreting it incorrectly?

    Thanks.
    Assuming that you are meant to use a 5% significance level, then yes you are right. (I think. It's been ages since I did this!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, I'm going for a 5% significance level.

    If the P value is > 0.05 what is the interpretation of the test?

    Does it mean that there is no correlation between the two variables? (even though the SRCC is -0.44)

    Thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aphex.twin)
    Yeah, I'm going for a 5% significance level.

    If the P value is > 0.05 what is the interpretation of the test?

    Does it mean that there is no correlation between the two variables? (even though the SRCC is -0.44)

    Thanks
    It means you reject the hypothesis that there is a correlation (i.e. You conclude that there is no significant correlation. You have NOT proven that there isn't correlation; you have just failed to give enough evidence that there is a correlation!)


    Think about it this way: Suppose I gave you a coin and told you to flip it 10 times then decide whether or not it's biased. You flip it and record 6 heads and 4 tails.
    Would you conclude that the coin is biased based on this? No, because there's not enough evidence. But does this mean for sure that the coin isn't biased? Again no; that's just the best educated guess that you can make with the given information.

    So similarly in this question, can you conclude that there is a significant correlation? No, because there is a lack of evidence.
    Does this mean for sure that there isn't any correlation? No, that's just the best guess you can make.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.