nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

correlation

Alma1

Is this true that in some analyses, especially Microbial diversity, linear correlations are weak, but still biologically significant by weak I mean 0.27 or -0.14, 0.07,-0.08? I dont agree that this true

if a correlation is weak but significant would it mean it is correlated having above values.

Any comments?

Thanks

Accepted answers

All comments

txnelson

Statistical significance of a correlation does not mean that the correlation is relivant or important. Statistical significance basically implies that the value of the correlation is probably a true relationship. And even correlations of .27 or -.14 can be significant, but the amount of the relationship between the measurements isn't very strong.

Alma1

Thanks Jim
This is what I thought. knowing that the number is very small would you count this as a weak correlation or would you neglect it ?

txnelson

There is not a fixed rule on this. The topic of study has to be taken into account.

Alma1

Thank you Jim

Peter_Bartell

I encourage you to think of correlation as a descriptive statistic...not an inferential statistic. Once you start talking about 'significance' you are in inferential statistics land...not descriptive statistics land.

Alma1

Thanks