» Articles » PMID: 31139500

Exploring Perceptions of Meaningfulness in Visual Representations of Bivariate Relationships

Overview
Journal PeerJ
Date 2019 May 30
PMID 31139500
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Researchers often need to consider the practical significance of a relationship. For example, interpreting the magnitude of an effect size or establishing bounds in equivalence testing requires knowledge of the meaningfulness of a relationship. However, there has been little research exploring the degree of relationship among variables (e.g., correlation, mean difference) necessary for an association to be interpreted as meaningful or practically significant. In this study, we presented statistically trained and untrained participants with a collection of figures that displayed varying degrees of mean difference between groups or correlations among variables and participants indicated whether or not each relationship was meaningful. The results suggest that statistically trained and untrained participants differ in their qualification of a meaningful relationship, and that there is significant variability in how large a relationship must be before it is labeled meaningful. The results also shed some light on what degree of relationship is considered meaningful by individuals in a context-free setting.

Citing Articles

Negligible interaction test for continuous predictors.

Jabbari Y, Cribbie R J Appl Stat. 2022; 49(8):2001-2015.

PMID: 35757595 PMC: 9225631. DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2021.1887102.


Bayesian Hodges-Lehmann tests for statistical equivalence in the two-sample setting: Power analysis, type I error rates and equivalence boundary selection in biomedical research.

Kelter R BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):171.

PMID: 34404344 PMC: 8369333. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01341-7.


Denouncing the use of field-specific effect size distributions to inform magnitude.

Panzarella E, Beribisky N, Cribbie R PeerJ. 2021; 9:e11383.

PMID: 34178435 PMC: 8210805. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11383.

References
1.
Fayers P, Cuschieri A, Fielding J, Craven J, Uscinska B, Freedman L . Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000; 82(1):213-9. PMC: 2363196. DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.1999.0902. View

2.
Kelley K, Preacher K . On effect size. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17(2):137-52. DOI: 10.1037/a0028086. View

3.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G . Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10(4):407-15. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6. View

4.
Allen P, Dorozenko K, Roberts L . Difficult Decisions: A Qualitative Exploration of the Statistical Decision Making Process from the Perspectives of Psychology Students and Academics. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:188. PMC: 4754455. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00188. View

5.
Barker L, Luman E, McCauley M, Chu S . Assessing equivalence: an alternative to the use of difference tests for measuring disparities in vaccination coverage. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156(11):1056-61. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf149. View