Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Mathematics & Statistics / statistics
Spanish term or phrase:nivel de significación del 95.5%
I know that "nivel de significación" is "level of significance"; the real problem is the 95.5%. I am not a statistics expert, but from what I've read, the term refers to the p-value, which is expressed as a decimal no. (p-value < 0.05, for example), which (if I've understood this correctly) would normally be expressed as a 5% level of significance (please correct me if I'm wrong!)
So... if most of the "levels of significance" that I see in English are 0.05 (5%) or 0.01 (1%), what's with the 95.5%? Is it expressed the opposite way in Spanish? Did my client get it backwards?(Most of the refs. I've seen in Spanish use the 0.05/5% way of expressing it.) How would I put this correctly in English? 95.5%? 4.5%? neither of the above?
In case it helps shed some light, here's the full sentence/paragraph:
Este tamaño total de muestra (575 entrevistas) nos permitió trabajar con un error de ± 4.2% a un nivel de significación del 95.5%.
Explanation: It would be commonly referred to as the "95.5% confidence level"...
I used to write a lot reports like this when I worked as a market research project manager, so this is my suggested translation:
"This total sample size (575 interviews) allowed us to work with a margin of error of ± 4.2% at the 95.5% confidence level"
I'm NOT a statistician, however, so I'm not sure I can explain why this is so...
However, I'm almost certain that the confidence level is 95.5% and that this is how you would express it.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 16:58:47 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Here is an example taken from the web which explains statistical analysis in reference to poll (voting) results:
Understanding the basics of polling is a challenge. Just because a candidate appears to be ahead based on the percentages, the fact is he/she might not be ahead when the figures are examined using basic statistical techniques.
For example, someone not familiar with statistical analysis might report:
Candidate Bob Cressman is ahead in the polls following a debate with Candidate Denise Westbury based on a poll done by Voters Choice that found 53 percent of those polled favored Cressman compared to 47 percent favoring Westbury.
However, an important fact, the margin of error, is often overlooked in reporting poll results. If the margin of error is, for example, plus or minus 4 percent, it means that there is no difference in the two candidates\' ranking in this example (47 + 4 = 51 vs 53 - 4 = 49). In this case. the two percentages could possibly overlap depending on error, creating the potential for no difference in results.
What do we mean by error? The margin of error refers to a statistical tool used to balance against \"error\" in sampling (Example--too many men, too many middle age folks), questions (bias, lack of clarity) etc. -- things that are unseen that might affect the actual outcome. This is the simple explanation. There are multiple types of error. The bottom line is that no survey or poll is perfect. The statisticians developed margin of error to compensate for this.
The margin of error is based on the sample size -- the more people polled the smaller the possible error. Statisticians have generated charts showing the margin of error based on sample sizes. It is not an arbitrary figure.
Confidence level: what’s that?
Another issue in reporting polls is the confidence level, which is a bit more complicated to understand, but goes to the heart of accurate reporting.
When conducting polls researchers, in advance, assign a number called a confidence level--this is the level (percent) at which they have confidence in the results. By definition confidence level is viewed as the probability of obtaining a given result by chance. Researchers select the confidence level in advance based on pre-testing and previous research. The purpose is to prevent the researcher from being tempted to tweak the results for a more favorable result.
The confidence level is usually reported at the 95 percent or 90 percent level, but can go higher or lower (think of it this way--if you were taking a new drug would you want one tested at the 98 percent confidence level or the 75 percent confidence level?).
The confidence level figure is part of the same chart as the margin of error chart. The confidence level should always be reported as part of the story because it gives the reader a chance to assess the results.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 17:08:35 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
I finally checked this one with the client, and was asked to change "nivel de significación" to "nivel de confianza," so the points go to Carolingua for suggesting this first. Thanks to everyone who participated--there were so many helpful answers here! 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
You're correct in that the level of significance, also called "alfa error", is the one usually set a 0.05.
It is not (usually) expressed backwards in Spanish...
Perhaps the authors got confused with the 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS...
... References coming.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 16:00:38 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
............... CINDY:
IN YOUR TEXT, BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF ± 4.2%, I BELIEVE THE AUTHORS MEANT NOT 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (SINCE THE INTERVALS ARE NOT PROVIDED), BUT RATHER ** SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF .05 **......meaning the probability of a false positive result is not greater than 5%.
- **nivel de significancia: significance level**
Probabilidad de rechazar la hipótesis nula cuando es cierta. Probabilidad de cometer un error tipo I. Este nivel es seleccionado por el investigador antes de realizar el experimento. **Los valores mas comúnmente seleccionados son niveles de .01, .05 y .10.**
........la **significación estadística** de una relación está fuertemente determinada por el tamaño muestral utilizado, de manera que a medida que aumenta el tamaño de muestra es más fácil encontrar una relación significativa ya que disminuye el valor criterio de referencia. La siguiente tabla proporciona los valores criterio a utilizar para decidir la **significación estadística** bilateral de una correlación de Pearson, en función de distintos tamaños muestrales para un **riesgo alfa del 5%** :
.........MEASUREMENTS: NP diagnosis relied on at least two clinical signs of respiratory infection and on chest radiography. Each NP case was randomly paired with two controls and followed up for 30 days to determine complication and mortality rates. RFs between cases and controls were compared (chi-square test, odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval, **significance level P =.05**). RFs that were significant in univariate analysis were tested using multivariate analysis and logistic regression.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 16:08:07 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
From our research:
Sgarbossa EB, Meyer PM, Pinski SL, Pavlovic-Surjancev B, Barbagelata A, Goodman SG, Lum AS, Underwood DA, Gates KB, Califf RM, Topol EJ, Wagner GS. Negative T waves shortly after ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction are a powerful marker for improved survival rate. Am Heart J. 2000 Sep;140(3):385-94.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported that negative T waves in the setting of acute coronary events are associated with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 in the infarct-related artery and with improved parameters of ventricular function rather than with ischemia. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-I) angiographic substudy (ie, patients with acute infarction randomly assigned to one of 4 thrombolytic regimens who then underwent coronary angiography) were included in this study if they survived at least 24 hours and had no confounding electrocardiographic factors (n = 1505). RESULTS: More patients had negative T waves develop (NT group, n = 938 [62%]) than not (PT group, n = 567 [38%]). Peak creatine kinase MB, time to thrombolysis, and randomization to accelerated alteplase were no different between the groups. Thirty days after admission, 12 patients in the NT group had died versus 25 patients in the PT group (1.3% vs. 4.4%; **P <.001;** odds ratio for negative T waves 0.28; 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.56). The difference persisted...
Sgarbossa EB, Pinski SL, Topol EJ, Califf RM, Barbagelata A, Goodman SG, Gates KB, Granger CB, Miller DP, Underwood DA, Wagner GS.Acute myocardial infarction and complete bundle branch block at hospital admission: clinical characteristics and outcome in the thrombolytic era. GUSTO-I Investigators. Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA [tissue-type plasminogen activator] for Occluded Coronary Arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Jan;31(1):105-10.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and bundle branch block in the thrombolytic era. BACKGROUND: Studies of patients with acute MI and bundle branch block have reported high mortality rates and poor overall prognosis. METHODS: The North American population with acute MI and bundle branch block enrolled in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA [tissue-type plasminogen activator] for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-I) trial was matched by age and Killip class with an equal number of GUSTO-I patients without conduction defects. RESULTS: Of all 26,003 North American patients in GUSTO-I, 420 (1.6%) had left (n = 131) or right (n = 289) bundle branch block. These patients had higher 30-day mortality rates than matched control subjects (18% vs. 11%, **p = 0.003**, odds ratio [OR] 1.8) and were more likely to experience cardiogenic shock (19% vs. 11%, **p = 0.008**, OR 1.78) or atrioventricular block/asystole (30% vs. 19%, **p < 0.012**, OR 1.57) and........
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 19:02:37 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Response to your question:
You\'re right again, Cindy!
Sorry. As you say in your initial explanation, here the significance level (P value) does seem to be .045.
So I need to correct my answer to:
................ Significance level of .045, or P= .045
(meaning that the investigators barely made it to the significance level, or that their results could ALMMOST have been generated by chance, but weren\'t.....)
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 19:03:36 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
... that was ALMOST with one \"M\", almost, almost......
xxxElena Sgarbo Native speaker of: Spanish PRO pts in category: 8
Explanation: It would be commonly referred to as the "95.5% confidence level"...
I used to write a lot reports like this when I worked as a market research project manager, so this is my suggested translation:
"This total sample size (575 interviews) allowed us to work with a margin of error of ± 4.2% at the 95.5% confidence level"
I'm NOT a statistician, however, so I'm not sure I can explain why this is so...
However, I'm almost certain that the confidence level is 95.5% and that this is how you would express it.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 16:58:47 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Here is an example taken from the web which explains statistical analysis in reference to poll (voting) results:
Understanding the basics of polling is a challenge. Just because a candidate appears to be ahead based on the percentages, the fact is he/she might not be ahead when the figures are examined using basic statistical techniques.
For example, someone not familiar with statistical analysis might report:
Candidate Bob Cressman is ahead in the polls following a debate with Candidate Denise Westbury based on a poll done by Voters Choice that found 53 percent of those polled favored Cressman compared to 47 percent favoring Westbury.
However, an important fact, the margin of error, is often overlooked in reporting poll results. If the margin of error is, for example, plus or minus 4 percent, it means that there is no difference in the two candidates\' ranking in this example (47 + 4 = 51 vs 53 - 4 = 49). In this case. the two percentages could possibly overlap depending on error, creating the potential for no difference in results.
What do we mean by error? The margin of error refers to a statistical tool used to balance against \"error\" in sampling (Example--too many men, too many middle age folks), questions (bias, lack of clarity) etc. -- things that are unseen that might affect the actual outcome. This is the simple explanation. There are multiple types of error. The bottom line is that no survey or poll is perfect. The statisticians developed margin of error to compensate for this.
The margin of error is based on the sample size -- the more people polled the smaller the possible error. Statisticians have generated charts showing the margin of error based on sample sizes. It is not an arbitrary figure.
Confidence level: what’s that?
Another issue in reporting polls is the confidence level, which is a bit more complicated to understand, but goes to the heart of accurate reporting.
When conducting polls researchers, in advance, assign a number called a confidence level--this is the level (percent) at which they have confidence in the results. By definition confidence level is viewed as the probability of obtaining a given result by chance. Researchers select the confidence level in advance based on pre-testing and previous research. The purpose is to prevent the researcher from being tempted to tweak the results for a more favorable result.
The confidence level is usually reported at the 95 percent or 90 percent level, but can go higher or lower (think of it this way--if you were taking a new drug would you want one tested at the 98 percent confidence level or the 75 percent confidence level?).
The confidence level figure is part of the same chart as the margin of error chart. The confidence level should always be reported as part of the story because it gives the reader a chance to assess the results.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 17:08:35 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Carolingua United States Local time: 16:00 Native speaker of: French, Spanish, English PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
I finally checked this one with the client, and was asked to change "nivel de significación" to "nivel de confianza," so the points go to Carolingua for suggesting this first. Thanks to everyone who participated--there were so many helpful answers here!
Nivel de significancia de 95% esta correcto o 5% tambien
Explanation: Esta corrector porque la definicion para el nivel de significancia es que es un límite entre el si y el no de que se de algo. Lo que cuenta es como expliques el porcentaje.
"Significance levels show you how likely a result is due to chance. The most common level, used to mean something is good enough to be believed, is .95. This means that the finding has a 95% chance of being true. However, this value is also used in a misleading way. No statistical package will show you "95%" or ".95" to indicate this level. Instead it will show you ".05," meaning that the finding has a five percent (.05) chance of not being true, which is the converse of a 95% chance of being true. To find the significance level, subtract the number shown from one. For example, a value of ".01" means that there is a 99% (1-.01=.99) chance of it being true."
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-07-07 17:20:34 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
95 % confidence level, significant at the 5% level
Explanation: I agree with my colleagues. In agriculture anyway, we are usually not so detailed; it's either 95% confidence interval/5% level significance or 99% confidence level/1% level significance; anything greater is rounded off to the nearest of these two values; thus 0.045 significance level is well within the 0.05 range and would be considered simply significant at the 5% level.
John Speese United States Local time: 19:00 Native speaker of: English
at a confidence level of 95.5% (or 0.5% significance level)
Explanation: Cindy,
I have a degree in Economics and a Master in Finance and obviously took several courses in statistics. In Spanish we use "coeficiente de confianza" as(1-alfa)and alfa as "nivel de significancia" o "probabilidad de cometer error tipo I". In your case, alfa is 0.5%, which is the "nivel de significancia" then, the "coeficiente de confianza" is 95.5%.
For further references you can take a look at "Econometría"; Damodaran M. Gujarati, Mc Graw Hill. I only have the Spanish edition.
Hope it helps!
Alejandra
Alejandra Vercellini Local time: 20:00 Works in field Native speaker of: Spanish