Sentences with phrase «significance level using»

The predictability horizon corresponds to the time interval when the anomaly correlation coefficient exceeds the 99 % significance level using 37 degrees of freedom (correlation coefficient is 0.37)

Not exact matches

For example, modern artists have found themselves challenged by primitive man at the common level of the use of symbols; a modern humanist could be influenced by, say, the historical Socrates, because of a common devotion to a certain understanding of the meaning and significance of truth; and so on.

All statistical tests were two - sided and conducted using an α level of 0.05 to judge significance.

We used Stata software version 8 (StataCorp, College Station, Tex) for all hypothesis tests, with a significance level of α =.05.

Kaplan - Meier and Cox proportional hazards survival analyses were used in unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the effect of pacifier use on breastfeeding duration.19 Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the effect of pacifier timing on breastfeeding duration.20 Significance levels were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.

You also need to decide what level of statistical significance you're going to use to determine success.

A significance level of p < 0.05 was used for all tests, which was marked by an asterisk in the figure.

An α - level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 23, and significance level was set at α <.05.

Participating students will use «discovery kits» equipped with reliable measuring devices to gather data of significance to the environment, such as pollution levels in water or radon levels in homes.

For instance, we see the 95 percent confidence level used in academic publications as a measure of statistical significance.

Upon receiving the grants they did research that were of significance especially on the middle level education by using the model known as «Schools to Watch» so that they could reform the school.

Almost all of the factors and smart beta strategies exhibit a negative relationship between starting valuation and subsequent performance whether we use the aggregate measure or P / B to define relative valuation.9 Out of 192 tests shown here, not a single test has the «wrong» sign: in every case, the cheaper the factor or strategy gets, relative to its historical average, the more likely it is to deliver positive performance.10 For most factors and strategies (two - thirds of the 192 tests) the relationship holds with statistical significance for horizons ranging from one month to five years and using both valuation measures (44 % of these results are significant at the 1 % level).

Low beta is the primary exception in our results, showing only one instance of statistical significance — at the 10 % level for the two - year horizon (matching the half - life), using the blended valuation measure — over the entire combination of horizons and two valuation measures.

We used the Dunn - Sidak method (α = 0.05 — Gotelli and Ellison 2004) to adjust significance level for multiple comparisons.

Streamflow trends were statistically determined for each station using the Mann - Kendall nonparametric test at a 10 % significant level, combined with a field significance test.

We added independent variables and used an F - test to test the null hypothesis that the coefficient of each term was zero at the 95 % significance level.

Using our AC - correct PC1s, RE = 0.0 occurs at the 0.985 level of significance.

The very high significance levels of model - observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the standard deviation or some other appropriate measure of ensemble spread.

«Also, the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998 — 2012 (Fig. 1 and table S1) by using the approach described in (25) for determining trend uncertainty.

I would ask the question that if the addition of ship data, the use of an «unclean» data set and relaxation of significance level made no difference, why did this paper have to be written at all.

For each dated forecast, we can track the subsequent record, and use a suite of sequential statistical tests to determine whether at some point it is clear that the forecast is wrong at one of the respected levels of statistical significance.

Correlation coefficient of 0.20 corresponds to the statistical significance at the 95 % level by using a two - side Student \ (t \) test with 100 samples

Indeed, as observed in our rejected submission, had Santer et al 2008 used up - to - data, their own method would have demonstrated the «very high significance levels» that IPCC objects to here.

The very high significance levels of model — observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the ensemble standard deviation or some other appropriate measure for uncertainty arising from internal climate variability... Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po - Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2013).

The very high levels of significance observed in McKitrick et al 2010 occurred because there were very high levels of significance, not because of the use of «inappropriate» statistics.

To them, none of these significance levels holds any meaning, and there is no use in applying either science or systems thinking.

We are thus at the same or lower significance level of 0.25 % because we may be accelerating AGW by this decision to use lower grades of fossil fuel to produce the equivalent amount of crude oil.

However, in spite of this small - sample bias, we nevertheless manage to reject the null hypothesis of stationarity in all cases, at a 10 % significance level and in all but one case using a 5 % significance level.

If the significance levels change when using individual runs as opposed to ensemble averages, then I wouldn't exactly call that «conclusions» that «fail to hold up».

Further uncertainties in the estimated significance levels arise from the use of model internal variability simulations and relatively short instrumental observations (after subtraction of an estimated greenhouse gas signal) to estimate the natural climate variability.

While its premature to say if what we're seeing at this level is of greater significance than just a change in the language used to describe what lawyers are (and have always been) doing, there is value in using new language.

If you know the number of visitors on a certain page and the click - through rate / conversion rate for a certain objective you can calculate (using this tool) if your lifecycle has enough significance and the right power level.

In addition to the 3 effects above, the study found suggestive evidence of a reduction in the 10 other substance use outcomes that were measured, but these other effects did not reach statistical significance at conventional (0.05) levels and may therefore be chance findings.

Three empirically derived cut - off criteria (44, 39 27) were used for the CAPS, and one cut - off level for the BDI (10), in order to assess the clinical significance of the results.

The data analysis were accounted by ANOVA, Tukey's HSD test with significance level of p < 0,05 using the SPSS program.

A sample of 190 women would allow estimation of the prevalence of smoking with 95 % confidence intervals within ± 7 % and have 80 % power, using a 5 % significance level, to detect differences in characteristics between smokers and non-smokers of 20 %, assuming a smoking prevalence of 50 %.

We will assess the extent of heterogeneity using the three methods suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Deeks 2011): visual inspection of forest plots, the Chi ² statistic (increasing the level of significance to 0.10 to avoid underestimating heterogeneity), and using Higgins» I ² statistic, which is designed to assess the impact of heterogeneity on the meta - analysis.

Outcome data (relevant details on all primary and secondary outcome measures used, and summary data, including means, standard deviations (SDs), confidence intervals (CIs) and significance levels for continuous data and proportions for dichotomous data).

All behavioral statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 16.0 (Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences, Version 16.0, SPSS Inc., USA) with a level of significance of p < 0.05.

Observed and expected frequencies of change talk, transitional probabilities and their significance levels both immediately following therapists» statements (Lag 1), and after a delay (Lag 2) were calculated using the Generalised Sequential Querier (GSEQ) programme.

All tests used a 2 - sided, α =.05 significance level.

A 95 % confidence level was used to interpret the statistical significance of probability tests, corresponding to a P value of <.05.

We conducted all of these analyses using two - tailed tests at a 0.05 significance level.

In order to control for type 1 error when conducting multiple comparisons, Benjamini and Hochberg's (1995) rough false discovery rate was used and the level of significance was measured at below 0.025.

Statistical significance levels for each comparison were adjusted to maintain p = 0.05 across multiple comparisons using False Discovery Rate (FDR) methods [59], [60].

Presence of a significant indirect path from age 13 psychopathology to age 14 psychopathology through the level of an emotion was tested by using the IND command in Mplus, which calculates the joined significance of the indirect pathways according to the formula by MacKinnon and colleagues (MacKinnon et al. 2002).

All statistical tests used the 5 % significance level.