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".
A person believes cell phones cause cancer despite scientific studies finding no correlation between them.
plot
Properties of a good measure of central tendency are:-It should be rigidly defined.It should include all observations.it should be simple to understand and easy to calculate.it should be capable of further mathematical treatment.It should be least affected by extreme observations.it should possess sampling stability.
A person claims red cars are unsafe even though studies show no correlations between the color and safety of cars [APEX]
Because it should help indicate what the graph is about.
good correlation
If measurements are taken for two (or more) variable for a sample , then the correlation between the variables are the sample correlation. If the sample is representative then the sample correlation will be a good estimate of the true population correlation.
A correlation coefficient is a value between -1 and 1 that shows how close of a good fit the regression line is. For example a regular line has a correlation coefficient of 1. A regression is a best fit and therefore has a correlation coefficient close to one. the closer to one the more accurate the line is to a non regression line.
No. If the correlation coefficient is close to 1 or -1, then the two variables have a high degree of statistical linear correlation. See the related link, particularly the graphs which illustrate correlation.
√182 is 18. Trouble is, that's not 18 squared. Try √3242 * * * * * Good try but not good enough! 18 squared is the squared root of 18 to the fourth power. That is to say, 324 is the square root of 104,976
A correlation coefficient has a range of -1 to 1. Any number outside of this range has been incorrectly calculated. I note that is you meant to ask - Is r= -0.626 is a very strong correlation coefficient? then the answer No, this value is not a strong indicator that a linear relationship exists. Please see related link. The diagrams showing x-y graphs and the correlation coefficients is a good way to gain a "feel" of the coefficients and strength of relationships.
R2 refers to the fraction of variance. it is the square of the correlation coefficient between two dependent variables. It is a statistical term that tells us how good one variable is at predicting another. If R2 is 1.0, then given the value of one variable you can perfectly predict the value of the other variable. If R2 is 0.0, then knowing either variable does not help you predict the other variable. In turn, the higher the R2 value the more correlation there is between the two variables.
low value of $ in INR is good for india's economy
FALSE
Hydrogen has the highest calorific value, which should make it good fuel
Such a correlation is absurd.
According to Kelly Blue Book if it is in good condition it should have a value of $3565