I like that advice. I also like to think of p's as measures of reliability; a p of .001 is more likely to be replicated than a p of .1, given the same effect size.
Marty Bourgeois University of Wyoming -----Original Message----- From: Karl L. Wuensch [mailto:wuenschk@;mail.ecu.edu] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:45 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: p is continuous, not dichotomous Last I checked, the significance level, p, was a probability (the conditional probability of obtaining results as more discrepant with the null than are those in the current sample), and probabilities vary CONTINUOUSLY from 0 to 1. At least that is what Jack Cohen told me. I suggest that we simply treat p as a measure of how well the data fit with the null hypothesis. P = .08 is very poor fit, p = .04 is not much poorer, and p = .80 tells me that we got just about what we would expect were the null true. Karl W. ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Marc Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:36 AM Subject: Re: Marginally Significant? In my mind, significance is an either/or situation. EIther you have it, or you don't. "Marginally significant", to me, would indicate something in the .048 range (assuming alpha=.05, it has to first be significant in order to be "marginally" so.) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
