Correlation vs Causation
Correlation measures the strength and direction of association between two variables; causation implies that changes in one variable directly produce changes in another. A strong correlation (e.g., r = 0.9) does not prove causation. Classic examples abound: shoe size and reading ability are correlated in children (confounded by age), but shoe size does not cause reading ability. Understanding when correlation implies causation requires evaluating study design, confounding variables, temporal precedence, and mechanism. Randomized experiments offer the strongest causal evidence; observational studies must carefully control for confounders.
Allikakirje
Tsiteeringud kopeeritud meetodi allikakirjest sõna-sõnalt. Nendest ei saa järeldada väidete tasemel kinnitust.
- Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. · ISBN 978-0-521-89560-6
- Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701. · DOI 10.1037/h0037350
- Hill, A. B. (1965). The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295–300. · DOI 10.1177/003591576505800503
Kureeritud väited
Väited on salvestatud tõendite registrisse, igal oma hinnanguga.
See vaade ei loo väite hinnangut, kui registris seda pole.
Seotud meetodid
Genereeritud meetodigraafist ja kuvatud masina soovitatud seostena – väiteid ei järeldata.