4 ms·
That's just saying that both experience negative effects after a threshold, but the threshold in the paper is different between genders so I wouldn't say there
by rubber_duck 10y ago
That's just saying that both experience negative effects after a threshold, but the threshold in the paper is different between genders so I wouldn't say there is no significant difference (like OP did), 3 extra hours over 27 total is >10%
- cauterized 10y agoThat's not what statistical significance means. Yes, 10% is "significant" in the sense that it would be enough for people to care about. The paper is saying that the sample size is too small to have any confidence that you'd still have a difference (or that the difference wouldn't go in the other direction) if you took a different sample of the population.
- rubber_duck 10y agoOP said there is no significant difference, paper says statistically significant. But you are right it makes more sense that they are saying gender difference results were not statistically significant - I don't understand why even report them then ?
- Noseshine 10y agoI don't get a "Reply" link under your later comment two levels down, so I reply here instead: > ...they are saying gender difference results were not statistically significant - > I don't understand why even report them then ? Because reporting a negative find is information too. What is the difference between not knowing and knowing there is nothing? Don't tell me there is none... :)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]