A college newspaper interviews a psychologist about a proposed system for rating the teaching ability of faculty members. The psychologist says, “The evidence indicates that the correlation between a faculty member’s research productivity and teaching rating is close to zero.” Which of the following is the best interpretation of this statement? (a) Good researchers tend to be low rated teachers and vice versa. (b) Highly rated teachers tend to be poor researchers and vice versa. (c) Good researchers are just as likely to be highly rated teachers as they are to be low rated teachers; likewise for poor researchers. (d) Good research and high teaching ratings go hand in hand.

The interpretation of this statement said by the psychologist is given in option (b): " Highly rated teachers tend to be poor researchers and vice versa."

How was the statement of the psychologist interpreted?

Different from causality, correlation (r) is a statistical measure of how much two variables are related to one another. It is a measure without units. Correlation values might be zero, positive, or negative.

The interviewer misinterpreted the psychologist's explanation of how productivity in this particular circumstance has nothing to do with ratings and concluded that good researchers cannot become good teachers.

Because of his uncertainty, the interviewer did not understand the psychologist's message as it was intended and instead twisted it.

Because he was unable to comprehend the psychologist's use of language in a new way, the interviewer completely misunderstood what the doctor had to say.

But, according to the interpretation, option (B) remains close to the psychologist's statement.

Check out the link below to learn about the psychologist's statement;

https://brainly.com/question/14469413

#SPJ6