Yay!! Bout friggin time!! At least this one recognized that percentages and statistical significance do not always go hand in hand.
It seems like every other article thus far has focused on the percentages rather than whether or not they're stastically significant. If the numbers are actually statistically significant, it means the likelihood of the differences occurring by chance alone is lessened. I haven't seen that proven in any of them thus far. Furthermore, with regard to correlational research, a significant correlation can not indicate causality. Perhaps these researchers and reporters should take a refresher course on Introductory Statistics.
I'll have to check my university library to see if I can get some actual academic journal references with regard to this rather than news articles. I want to see the actual statistical analyses and precisely how the study was conducted in black and white.
