I have previously asked this question but should have provided more detail on the question.
I have been presented with multiple choice test results relating to intelligence and overall job performance test scores. I have been asked to test significance and strength of the link between scores on the first test and subsequent job performance scores.
I first checked for assumptions for correlation and decided that a Pearson r was most appropriate.
Results show r(25) = +0.33, p = 0.11 , which means a moderately strong correlation but not significant.
I am also required to relate the results to the test author's claims that the test user is able to make excellent predictions about the future job performance of the test taker. It has been designed to be sensitive to differences in intelligence within a graduate population and the test is free from adverse impact and has superb test-retest reliability.
Am I correct in thinking that the results of a Pearson r would not allow me to relate to the test user's claims as it would not be permissible to comment on any causality between the variables and that I should only report the results from the test stating a correlation and non significance?
Also are there any further tests I should conduct as a result of there being non-significance please?