correlation equals 16%
thus r squared (r^2) = 0.16
thus r = 0.4 or 40%
relationship between 2 variables
Attendance this year
1 is the best, 0 is the worst. So the closer you are to 1, the better. Beyond that, I can't tell you a specific cutoff. It depends on what you're trying to prove. Sometimes, you won't settle for anything less than 0.99. Other times, you'll be tickled pink to get a 0.3. But the whole point of an R-squared is to give a numerical representation of how close the correlation is without resorting to vague terms like "good correlation". Publish the value of R-squared and let the readers make their own decisions about whether it's "good" or "bad".
all statistics are numerical statement but all numerical statement s of are not statistics explain
A parameter is a numerical measurement of a population; a statistic is a numerical measurement of a sample.
-1 to 1
relationship between 2 variables
A correlation is a statistical relationship between two or more variables. A correlation coefficient is when a researcher compares their result to another to see if they look more or less the same meaning if it is reliable or not.
Attendance this year
I honestly have no idea what 'numerical ability' is, but I do know that 6 is 40% of 15.
Although Spearman's rank correlation coefficient puts a numerical value between the linear association between two variables, it can only be used for data that has not been grouped.
The numerical 5 over 4 is 1.25%.
If the estimated value is given, then calculating the numerical error from the percentage error, or the other way around, is a trivial exercise. If the estimated value is not known then it is impossible to tell which of the two is clearer.
How many minutes do you spend on homework? What is the percentage of blue eyes in Georgia? etc.
How many minutes do you spend on homework? What is the percentage of blue eyes in Georgia? etc.
Correlation
25% The numerical increase is 10000 - 8000 = 2000 As a percentage of 8000, 2000 is: 100 x (2000/8000) = 100 x 0.25 = 25