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.
Catatan sumber
Kutipan disalin apa adanya dari catatan sumber metode. Tidak ada verifikasi tingkat klaim yang disimpulkan darinya.
- 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
Klaim yang dikurasi
Klaim tersimpan dalam buku besar bukti, masing-masing dengan penilaiannya sendiri.
Tampilan ini tidak menciptakan penilaian klaim ketika buku besar tidak memilikinya.
Metode terkait
Dihasilkan dari grafik metode dan ditampilkan sebagai relasi yang disarankan mesin — tidak ada klaim bukti yang disimpulkan.