Question

An observational study found that the amount of time a child spends learning an instrument is associated with standardized testing performance. The correlation coefficient was found to be r = 0.92. A conclusion was made that the more time a child spends learning an instrument, the better the child performs on standardized tests. Why is such a conclusion not correct? Causation cannot be determined from an observational study. The sample was not representative of the population. The correlation value should be negative for such a conclusion. The correlation value should equal o for such a conclusion. The correlation value implies that less than 85% of the variability in standardized testing performance can be explained by learning an instrument

Answer 1

• Causation cannot be determined from an observational study.

The correlation observed in a study does not necessarily implies causation. The reason for association can be some third variable (lurking variable). Therefore, the conclusion made is not correct.