Timeline for Practical significance and effect size
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2019 at 1:30 | comment | added | Russ Lenth | I agree “credible” is more appropriate. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 23:36 | comment | added | Matt Barstead | I really wish “significant” never caught on as a term. From a semantics standpoint, it is too easy to map the concept on to ideas of “importance”, “meaningful”, and other misguided ideas that shape the term’s interpretation. Maybe it is the Bayesian in me, but I find “credible” to be a less loaded and more accurate summary of most “significant” effects. After all, something that is credible is scientifically interesting and can still end up being unsupported by subsequently acquired data. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/1186749202686046209 | ||
| Oct 22, 2019 at 20:26 | answer | added | Michael Lew | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 20:10 | history | edited | Russ Lenth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 117 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 20:00 | comment | added | Russ Lenth | Well, there are question marks in there :-) But good point. I’ll edit so there is an actual question to be answered. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 19:43 | comment | added | whuber♦ | Right: is there really a question here we need to answer? | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 19:33 | comment | added | Sheridan Grant | I think you answered your own question :P | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 19:19 | history | asked | Russ Lenth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |