Yasmin Paul I haven’t watched the video past 2 mins so what I’m explain might be wrong but, if the second and third number is the same then you do 2+3=5 and then 5/2=2.5 and the following number is 4
Usually, you would just rank every figure from biggest to smallest going up from 1. In this case, however, those first two figures contending for the lowest spot are the same, both sitting at an aggression level of 5, so instead of ranking one of them 1 and another 2 you have to give them both the same rank. It's 1.5 because that is the halfway point between 1 and 2 and is the best comprise. To get this halfway point you can just so happen to be able to add up what would be their ranks (1 and 2 in this case) and divide the sum by two. This method will always give the right answer but the main thing to know is that it is the half-wy point. I hope that clears it up for you.
![Spearman Rank Correlation [Simply explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XV_W1w4Nwoc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Correlations - Research Methods [ A Level Psychology ]](/img/n.gif)
Absolutely adored every single step and narration in this video. Thank you myriads.
Ive got my pyschology exam tomorrow and you are a life ssaver, Cheers Clare
SAME GOODLUCK
This was good but you went through some bit to fast and didn't explain enough like the ranking part.
I played this on 1.5x speed and it was fine don't know why people commenting it was spoke to fast.
same lol
im so confused how yo rank it and get 3.5 etc
Since you have tied ranks, you should use another formula to calculate Spearman's correlation.
how to get the critical value? :)
THANK YOU OMG
Why did you use 1 tailed test and not 2 tailed test?
I thought you were supposed to rank high-low not low-high?
It doesn’t matter which way round you rank just as long as you use the same ranking system for both sets of data
you can never accept the null
omg thanks
Try not to speak too fast...and you're good.
still dont get it not a bad video but bit fast
Why are the ranks for aggression like that??? You didnt explain you just kind of said ... like why is it 1.5 ??
Yasmin Paul I haven’t watched the video past 2 mins so what I’m explain might be wrong but, if the second and third number is the same then you do 2+3=5 and then 5/2=2.5 and the following number is 4
Usually, you would just rank every figure from biggest to smallest going up from 1. In this case, however, those first two figures contending for the lowest spot are the same, both sitting at an aggression level of 5, so instead of ranking one of them 1 and another 2 you have to give them both the same rank. It's 1.5 because that is the halfway point between 1 and 2 and is the best comprise. To get this halfway point you can just so happen to be able to add up what would be their ranks (1 and 2 in this case) and divide the sum by two. This method will always give the right answer but the main thing to know is that it is the half-wy point. I hope that clears it up for you.
@@austinhampshire7282 exam was a month ago but thanks anyway I dont plan on using it again 😂😂😂
You take the medium value of all values that are the same, and assign all the same values that same medium rank.
@@tobyf6414 exam was over a year ago thanks tho !