Hello!
Can classifications of effect sizes for Pearson's r can be used equally for Spearman's rank correlation rho? For example, in Ellis (2010):
r = .10 -> small
r = .30 -> medium
r = .50 -> large
Is it correct to assume that
rho = .10 -> small
rho = .30 -> medium
rho = .50 -> large?
Thank you very much.
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Well, since that classification is purely subjective I Don't see why not, especially for mesures bounded to (-1,1)
I'm pretty sure there's older literature on that.
But why dont you give your personal interpretation once you have analysed your data?See how much it varies in your data?
Is your value big? Small? Does it vary a lot?
The effect size is the same only rho spearman is used when the data does not meet a proper normality.
Hi Alvaro - yes, they are interpreted in the same way. Here's a link to an article that talks about this: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/correlation-pearson-kendall-spearman/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation