That's why there is "statistical significance" and "practical significance." Most researcher take there data run it through a stats program and report the results without really going back to the data to close the loop between statistical and practical significance.
Yes, "statistical significance" and "practical significance" should be matched, however for most of my comparative field based results, statistics provides the realistic results.
What I feel, if experimenter follows the statistical assumptions and principle in real sense and collect data from all the relevent indicators, the results will be realistic.
Dear All,
Thank you for your response, but some programs show statistical relationships between the different factors, but may in fact there are no father relationship between these factors
Dear Fikrat
Thanks. Yes, you are right. These relationship known as spurious relations. Infact, the decision of cause and effect linkages can not be established based on empirical relationship rather “casualty, in fact comes from theoretical considerations” (Montgomery and Peck, 1982). Thus, for establishing any kind of casualty, the relationship between the repressors and the response must have “a basis outside of the sample data”.
The tools or techniques can not understand the relationship. It is our cogginative mind, which interpretate.
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Physiology
- Biosignals
- Biomedical Signal Processing
- Statistical Analysis