I think that shifting from 15% to 20% over ten years is so plausible under the null hypothesis that it doesn’t really cry out for explanation, and any proposed explanation has to somehow explain why it didn’t lead to a larger effect!
I think that shifting from 15% to 20% over ten years is so plausible under the null hypothesis that it doesn’t really cry out for explanation, and any proposed explanation has to somehow explain why it didn’t lead to a larger effect!