First, let me say that this package is terrific! But...in the footnote of apa.cor.table, 95% CIs are described as "a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation (Cumming, 2014)." Cumming may have said this, but this misrepresents what the 95% CI actually is. If a statement is to be made, it might be that "intervals of this nature from similar random samples will capture the population parameter 95% of the time." See a related commentary on Cummming here: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/slinden/files/psychologist_0.pdf
The way to get a range of plausible population correlations, as described, is to be a Bayesian :)
[also, the statement that population correlations could have 'caused' a sample correlation seems a bit off, but that's sort of a side issue...]
First, let me say that this package is terrific! But...in the footnote of apa.cor.table, 95% CIs are described as "a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation (Cumming, 2014)." Cumming may have said this, but this misrepresents what the 95% CI actually is. If a statement is to be made, it might be that "intervals of this nature from similar random samples will capture the population parameter 95% of the time." See a related commentary on Cummming here: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/slinden/files/psychologist_0.pdf
The way to get a range of plausible population correlations, as described, is to be a Bayesian :)
[also, the statement that population correlations could have 'caused' a sample correlation seems a bit off, but that's sort of a side issue...]