ScholarGate
어시스턴트

방법 비교

선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.

상관관계 대 인과관계×효과 크기×
분야연구 통계연구 통계
계열Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
기원 연도19651988
창시자Multiple sources (Bradford Hill, Judea Pearl, Donald Rubin)Jacob Cohen
유형ConceptConcept
원전Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0-521-89560-6Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0-8058-0283-5
별칭correlation and causation, causal inference, spurious correlation, confoundingES, Cohen's d, standardized effect, practical significance
관련44
요약Correlation 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.Effect size quantifies the magnitude of a research finding independent of sample size. While a p-value tells you whether a result is statistically significant, an effect size tells you how big the result is. Jacob Cohen formalized effect size measurement in behavioral sciences (1988), establishing standard benchmarks (small = 0.2, medium = 0.5, large = 0.8 for Cohen's d). Effect sizes are essential for meta-analysis, power analysis, and communicating the practical importance of research findings.
ScholarGate데이터셋
  1. v1
  2. 3 출처
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 출처
  3. PUBLISHED

검색으로 이동 슬라이드 다운로드

ScholarGate방법 비교: Correlation vs Causation · Effect Size. 2026-06-15에 다음에서 검색함: https://scholargate.app/ko/compare