The distinction between statistical and practical significance often arises in the analysis of large data sets, where seemingly small disparities can reach statistical significance at the 0.05 level. In 2014, the opinion in Jones v. Boston created a split in the circuits when it relied solely on statistical significance. The opinion noted that there is no generally accepted definition of practical significance and that the phrase may simply mean that the person using the term views the disparity as substantial enough that a plaintiff should be able to sue. In July 2019, the Office of Federal Compliance Programs (OFCCP) proposed updated procedures for the way it considers both practical and statistical significance when reviewing the employment practices of government contractors.1 On 10 November 2020, the Agency issued its final rules, which downplayed the role of statistical significance.2 The main measures of practical significance mentioned in the notices OFCCP issued in the Federal Register or its Frequently Asked Questions guide3 as well as some other measures of practical significance that have been proposed are studied in this article. The results of the paper support the First Circuit and OFCCP in their views that there is no single measure of practical significance that can be recommended for use as the sole criterion for deciding whether the disparity has practical importance. Nevertheless, the paper includes an empirical guideline combining the odds ratio and difference between success rates to judge practical significance as well as recommendations for balancing Type I and Type II errors and their consequences in the context of the case in determining the level required for statistical significance.

中文翻译：

---

关于平等就业案例中实际意义和统计意义之间的相互作用

统计显着性和实际显着性之间的区别通常出现在对大型数据集的分析中，其中看似很小的差异可以达到 0.05 水平的统计显着性。2014 年，琼斯诉波士顿案中的意见在仅依赖统计显着性时造成了巡回赛的分裂。该意见指出，没有普遍接受的实际意义定义，并且该短语可能仅表示使用该术语的人认为差异足够大，以至于原告应该能够起诉。2019 年 7 月，联邦合规计划办公室 (OFCCP) 提出了在审查政府承包商的雇佣实践时考虑实际和统计意义的方式的更新程序。 1 2020 年 11 月 10 日，该机构发布了最终规则，2 在《联邦公报》或其常见问题指南 3 中发布的 OFCCP 通知中提到的主要具有实际意义的措施以及已经提出的其他一些具有实际意义的措施在本文中进行了研究。该论文的结果支持第一巡回法院和 OFCCP 的观点，即没有任何一种具有实际意义的单一衡量标准可以被推荐用作决定差异是否具有实际重要性的唯一标准。尽管如此，