0
$\begingroup$

As I was studying Cramers-V I saw two different Youtube videos authoritatively hand down 2 different sets of thresholds for strengths of measures of association.

The first video said that 0-.29 was weak, 0.3-.6 was moderate, and .6-1 was strong.

The second video said 0 was none, <.3 was weak, and .3-1 was strong.

Could anyone answer which one is more conventional, if not more downright correct?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Convention varies between fields, a strong relationship in (say) economics might be a weak relationship in (say) physics. There's no objective way of deciding what is 'correct'. $\endgroup$ Mar 6 '18 at 20:49
1
$\begingroup$

I'd suggest stay away from those cookie cutter rules, as they don't take the variables into context.

Some fields of study look at variables that are a lot more correlated (e.g. physics, some medical or biological studies, etc.) and for those researchers your first criterion would make more sense. While researchers from other fields that tend to more less correlated data (e.g. behavioral science) may favor the second scheme.

A better approach perhaps is to survey some literature that examines variables to yours and get a sense of the ranges, and how the authors interpret the strength.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.