Timeline for SPSS "Sig." values in ONEWAY post-hoc tests
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2017 at 2:38 | comment | added | Carl | Indeed, your question may been closed if you hadn't cleared up that particular ambiguity. Future reference, be specific. | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 4:48 | vote | accept | Alan Mead | ||
| Feb 23, 2017 at 4:11 | answer | added | Tim | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 3:29 | history | edited | Alan Mead | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 473 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2017 at 3:23 | comment | added | Alan Mead | @Carl - Yes, perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm aware of that, but this use by SPSS must mean something else (or, more likely, it's the probability of something other than the post hoc test). A picture may be worth 1000 words; I'll see if I can add a link to a PDF. | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 3:16 | comment | added | Carl | Sig. is interpretation of probability. Typically, but not necessarily, probabilities > 0.05 are not significant and probabilities <0.05 are significant for the test being performed. This may seem backwards but isn't because we usually assume the opposite of what we are trying to show. So if we assume $A=B$ and obtain $p<0.05$ we have shown it is unlikely that $A=B$ so that (usually 19 times out of 20) $A\neq B$. Question may be too basic to leave open here, don't know. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 22:03 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 23, 2017 at 12:37 | |||||
| Feb 22, 2017 at 21:17 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 22, 2017 at 21:47 | |||||
| Feb 22, 2017 at 21:17 | history | asked | Alan Mead | CC BY-SA 3.0 |