In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Many posters to this thread have used the phrase "practical
>significance". I find it only confuses things. Just so all of us
>are
>clear on what we're talking about, might we restrict ourselves to
>the terms "statistical signficance" and "practical importance"?
As most people consider statistical significance to be
a measure of importance, I think practical significance
should be maintained. The bad term is "statistical
significance".
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
