DaHuuuuuudge said:
-_- The point of talking about alpha-levels is because essencially, they are what statistical significance is. You seem to be confusing correlation coefficient with alpha-levels, an alpha level tells you how likely it will be to reject the null hypothesis, and the correlation coefficient (r-value) shows the level of correlation as well as the nature of correlation (positive vs. negative) |
You judge the correlation coefficent with the alpha....
I hate to go all wikipedia on you... which is weird that I'd have too since your a government stats guy but....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
The significance level is usually denoted by the Greek symbol α (lowercase alpha). Popular levels of significance are 10% (0.1), 5% (0.05), 1% (0.01), 0.5% (0.005), and 0.1% (0.001). If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than the significance level α, the null hypothesis is rejected. Such results are informally referred to as 'statistically significant'. For example, if someone argues that "there's only one chance in a thousand this could have happened by coincidence", a 0.001 level of statistical significance is being implied. The lower the significance level chosen, the stronger the evidence required. The choice of significance level is somewhat arbitrary, but for many applications, a level of 5% is chosen by convention.[3][4]
If a correlation isn't strong enough, it can't pass the Alpha... because it's not strong enough to not be random chance.









