sample thesis using pearson r

• Statistical Analysis
• Biomedical Signal Processing
• Basic Statistical Analysis
• Correlation Coefficient

Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation: Sample Analysis

• The Queen's Medical Center

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Lourence Anthony L. Provendido
• Princess Ira P. Rosal
• Casey Fiona B. Patosa

• Adinda Sitaresmi Putri Arimurti
• Bangun Muljo Sukojo
• Zafira Yasmin
• Edi Suryadi
• Budi Santoso
• Suparno Suparno

• Amenda Man Wang

• Septi Dwi Nur Fatimah
• Sindhuandra Permana

• Christin I. M. Pangaila
• Meity Muntuuntu
• Paula Rombepajung

• Aidil Haryanto

• Nur Kartika Indah Mayasti

• Ross J Scalese
• D. T. Bryant
• Dean J. Champion
• Karl Pearson
• J. H. G. Zar

• Elazar J. Pedhazur
• J AM STAT ASSOC
• Jacob Cohen
• Nancy Burns
• Susan K. Grove
• Cyril Murray

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

R news and tutorials contributed by hundreds of R bloggers

Pearson correlation in r.

Posted on October 26, 2021 by Statistical Aid in R bloggers | 0 Comments

[social4i size="small" align="align-left"] --> [This article was first published on R tutorials – Statistical Aid: A School of Statistics , and kindly contributed to R-bloggers ]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here ) Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

The Pearson correlation coefficient, sometimes known as Pearson’s r, is a statistic that determines how closely two variables are related. Its value ranges from -1 to +1, with 0 denoting no linear correlation, -1 denoting a perfect negative linear correlation, and +1 denoting a perfect positive linear correlation . A correlation between variables means that as one variable’s value changes, the other tends to change in the same way.

Creating or Importing data into R

Let’s import data into R or create some example data as follows:

If we want to calculate the Pearson’s correlation of x and y in data, we can use the following code:

From the above result, we get that Pearson’s correlation coefficient is 0.90, which indicates a strong correlation between x and y.

Interpretation of Pearson Correlation Coefficient 

The value of the correlation coefficient (r) lies between -1 to +1. When the value of –

• r=0; there is no relation between the variable.
• r=+1; perfectly positively correlated.
• r=-1; perfectly negatively correlated.
• r= 0 to 0.30; negligible correlation.
• r=0.30 to 0.50; moderate correlation.
• r=0.50 to 1 highly correlated.

A common misconception about the Pearson correlation is that it provides information on the slope of the relationship between the two variables being tested. This is incorrect, the Pearson correlation only measures the strength of the relationship between the two variables. To illustrate this, consider the following example:

The Pearson correlation coefficient of these two sets of x and y values is exactly the same:

However, when we plot these x and y values on a chart, the relationship looks very different:

Learn Data Science and Machine Learning

Data Analysis Using R/R Studio

• Import data into R
• Principal component analysis (PCA) code
• Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) code
• Independent component analysis (ICA) code
• Cluster Analysis using R
• One-way ANOVA using R
• Two-way ANOVA using R
• Paired sample t-test using R
• Random Forest in R
• Chi-square test using R

The post Pearson correlation in R appeared first on Statistical Aid: A School of Statistics .

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: R tutorials – Statistical Aid: A School of Statistics . R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job . Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

Copyright © 2022 | MH Corporate basic by MH Themes

Never miss an update! Subscribe to R-bloggers to receive e-mails with the latest R posts. (You will not see this message again.)

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Correlation Coefficient | Types, Formulas & Examples

Correlation Coefficient | Types, Formulas & Examples

Published on August 2, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A correlation coefficient is a number between -1 and 1 that tells you the strength and direction of a relationship between variables .

In other words, it reflects how similar the measurements of two or more variables are across a dataset.

Table of contents

What does a correlation coefficient tell you, using a correlation coefficient, interpreting a correlation coefficient, visualizing linear correlations, types of correlation coefficients, pearson’s r, spearman’s rho, other coefficients, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about correlation coefficients.

Correlation coefficients summarize data and help you compare results between studies.

Summarizing data

A correlation coefficient is a descriptive statistic . That means that it summarizes sample data without letting you infer anything about the population. A correlation coefficient is a bivariate statistic when it summarizes the relationship between two variables, and it’s a multivariate statistic when you have more than two variables.

If your correlation coefficient is based on sample data, you’ll need an inferential statistic if you want to generalize your results to the population. You can use an F test or a t test to calculate a test statistic that tells you the statistical significance of your finding.

Comparing studies

A correlation coefficient is also an effect size measure, which tells you the practical significance of a result.

Correlation coefficients are unit-free, which makes it possible to directly compare coefficients between studies.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

In correlational research , you investigate whether changes in one variable are associated with changes in other variables.

After data collection , you can visualize your data with a scatterplot by plotting one variable on the x-axis and the other on the y-axis. It doesn’t matter which variable you place on either axis.

Visually inspect your plot for a pattern and decide whether there is a linear or non-linear pattern between variables. A linear pattern means you can fit a straight line of best fit between the data points, while a non-linear or curvilinear pattern can take all sorts of different shapes, such as a U-shape or a line with a curve.

There are many different correlation coefficients that you can calculate. After removing any outliers , select a correlation coefficient that’s appropriate based on the general shape of the scatter plot pattern. Then you can perform a correlation analysis to find the correlation coefficient for your data.

You calculate a correlation coefficient to summarize the relationship between variables without drawing any conclusions about causation .

Both variables are quantitative and normally distributed with no outliers, so you calculate a Pearson’s r correlation coefficient .

The value of the correlation coefficient always ranges between 1 and -1, and you treat it as a general indicator of the strength of the relationship between variables.

The sign of the coefficient reflects whether the variables change in the same or opposite directions: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.

The absolute value of a number is equal to the number without its sign. The absolute value of a correlation coefficient tells you the magnitude of the correlation: the greater the absolute value, the stronger the correlation.

There are many different guidelines for interpreting the correlation coefficient because findings can vary a lot between study fields. You can use the table below as a general guideline for interpreting correlation strength from the value of the correlation coefficient.

While this guideline is helpful in a pinch, it’s much more important to take your research context and purpose into account when forming conclusions. For example, if most studies in your field have correlation coefficients nearing .9, a correlation coefficient of .58 may be low in that context.

The correlation coefficient tells you how closely your data fit on a line. If you have a linear relationship, you’ll draw a straight line of best fit that takes all of your data points into account on a scatter plot.

The closer your points are to this line, the higher the absolute value of the correlation coefficient and the stronger your linear correlation.

If all points are perfectly on this line, you have a perfect correlation.

If all points are close to this line, the absolute value of your correlation coefficient is high .

If these points are spread far from this line, the absolute value of your correlation coefficient is low .

Note that the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient doesn’t help you predict how much one variable will change based on a given change in the other, because two datasets with the same correlation coefficient value can have lines with very different slopes.

You can choose from many different correlation coefficients based on the linearity of the relationship, the level of measurement of your variables, and the distribution of your data.

For high statistical power and accuracy, it’s best to use the correlation coefficient that’s most appropriate for your data.

The most commonly used correlation coefficient is Pearson’s r because it allows for strong inferences. It’s parametric and measures linear relationships. But if your data do not meet all assumptions for this test, you’ll need to use a non-parametric test instead.

Non-parametric tests of rank correlation coefficients summarize non-linear relationships between variables. The Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau have the same conditions for use, but Kendall’s tau is generally preferred for smaller samples whereas Spearman’s rho is more widely used.

The table below is a selection of commonly used correlation coefficients, and we’ll cover the two most widely used coefficients in detail in this article.

The Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient, also known as Pearson’s r, describes the linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r:

• Both variables are on an interval or ratio level of measurement
• Data from both variables follow normal distributions
• Your data have no outliers
• Your data is from a random or representative sample
• You expect a linear relationship between the two variables

The Pearson’s r is a parametric test, so it has high power. But it’s not a good measure of correlation if your variables have a nonlinear relationship, or if your data have outliers, skewed distributions, or come from categorical variables. If any of these assumptions are violated, you should consider a rank correlation measure.

The formula for the Pearson’s r is complicated, but most computer programs can quickly churn out the correlation coefficient from your data. In a simpler form, the formula divides the covariance between the variables by the product of their standard deviations .

Pearson sample vs population correlation coefficient formula

When using the Pearson correlation coefficient formula, you’ll need to consider whether you’re dealing with data from a sample or the whole population.

The sample and population formulas differ in their symbols and inputs. A sample correlation coefficient is called r , while a population correlation coefficient is called rho, the Greek letter ρ.

The sample correlation coefficient uses the sample covariance between variables and their sample standard deviations.

The population correlation coefficient uses the population covariance between variables and their population standard deviations.

Spearman’s rho, or Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, is the most common alternative to Pearson’s r . It’s a rank correlation coefficient because it uses the rankings of data from each variable (e.g., from lowest to highest) rather than the raw data itself.

You should use Spearman’s rho when your data fail to meet the assumptions of Pearson’s r . This happens when at least one of your variables is on an ordinal level of measurement or when the data from one or both variables do not follow normal distributions.

While the Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linearity of relationships, the Spearman correlation coefficient measures the monotonicity of relationships.

In a linear relationship, each variable changes in one direction at the same rate throughout the data range. In a monotonic relationship, each variable also always changes in only one direction but not necessarily at the same rate.

• Positive monotonic: when one variable increases, the other also increases.
• Negative monotonic: when one variable increases, the other decreases.

Monotonic relationships are less restrictive than linear relationships.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient formula

The symbols for Spearman’s rho are ρ for the population coefficient and r s for the sample coefficient. The formula calculates the Pearson’s r correlation coefficient between the rankings of the variable data.

To use this formula, you’ll first rank the data from each variable separately from low to high: every datapoint gets a rank from first, second, or third, etc.

Then, you’ll find the differences (d i ) between the ranks of your variables for each data pair and take that as the main input for the formula.

If you have a correlation coefficient of 1, all of the rankings for each variable match up for every data pair. If you have a correlation coefficient of -1, the rankings for one variable are the exact opposite of the ranking of the other variable. A correlation coefficient near zero means that there’s no monotonic relationship between the variable rankings.

The correlation coefficient is related to two other coefficients, and these give you more information about the relationship between variables.

Coefficient of determination

When you square the correlation coefficient, you end up with the correlation of determination ( r 2 ). This is the proportion of common variance between the variables. The coefficient of determination is always between 0 and 1, and it’s often expressed as a percentage.

The coefficient of determination is used in regression models to measure how much of the variance of one variable is explained by the variance of the other variable.

A regression analysis helps you find the equation for the line of best fit, and you can use it to predict the value of one variable given the value for the other variable.

A high r 2 means that a large amount of variability in one variable is determined by its relationship to the other variable. A low r 2 means that only a small portion of the variability of one variable is explained by its relationship to the other variable; relationships with other variables are more likely to account for the variance in the variable.

The correlation coefficient can often overestimate the relationship between variables, especially in small samples, so the coefficient of determination is often a better indicator of the relationship.

Coefficient of alienation

When you take away the coefficient of determination from unity (one), you’ll get the coefficient of alienation. This is the proportion of common variance not shared between the variables, the unexplained variance between the variables.

A high coefficient of alienation indicates that the two variables share very little variance in common. A low coefficient of alienation means that a large amount of variance is accounted for by the relationship between the variables.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square test of independence
• Statistical power
• Descriptive statistics
• Degrees of freedom
• Pearson correlation
• Null hypothesis

Methodology

• Double-blind study
• Case-control study
• Research ethics
• Data collection
• Hypothesis testing
• Structured interviews

Research bias

• Hawthorne effect
• Unconscious bias
• Recall bias
• Halo effect
• Self-serving bias
• Information bias

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r :

Correlation coefficients always range between -1 and 1.

The sign of the coefficient tells you the direction of the relationship: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.

No, the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient only tells you how closely your data fit on a line, so two datasets with the same correlation coefficient can have very different slopes.

To find the slope of the line, you’ll need to perform a regression analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Correlation Coefficient | Types, Formulas & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/correlation-coefficient/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, correlational research | when & how to use, correlation vs. causation | difference, designs & examples, simple linear regression | an easy introduction & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples

Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 5 December 2022.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between variables without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the relationship between two (or more) variables. The direction of a correlation can be either positive or negative.

Table of contents

Correlational vs experimental research, when to use correlational research, how to collect correlational data, how to analyse correlational data, correlation and causation, frequently asked questions about correlational research.

Correlational and experimental research both use quantitative methods to investigate relationships between variables. But there are important differences in how data is collected and the types of conclusions you can draw.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Correlational research is ideal for gathering data quickly from natural settings. That helps you generalise your findings to real-life situations in an externally valid way.

There are a few situations where correlational research is an appropriate choice.

To investigate non-causal relationships

You want to find out if there is an association between two variables, but you don’t expect to find a causal relationship between them.

Correlational research can provide insights into complex real-world relationships, helping researchers develop theories and make predictions.

To explore causal relationships between variables

You think there is a causal relationship between two variables, but it is impractical, unethical, or too costly to conduct experimental research that manipulates one of the variables.

Correlational research can provide initial indications or additional support for theories about causal relationships.

To test new measurement tools

You have developed a new instrument for measuring your variable, and you need to test its reliability or validity .

Correlational research can be used to assess whether a tool consistently or accurately captures the concept it aims to measure.

There are many different methods you can use in correlational research. In the social and behavioural sciences, the most common data collection methods for this type of research include surveys, observations, and secondary data.

It’s important to carefully choose and plan your methods to ensure the reliability and validity of your results. You should carefully select a representative sample so that your data reflects the population you’re interested in without bias .

In survey research , you can use questionnaires to measure your variables of interest. You can conduct surveys online, by post, by phone, or in person.

Surveys are a quick, flexible way to collect standardised data from many participants, but it’s important to ensure that your questions are worded in an unbiased way and capture relevant insights.

Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation is a type of field research where you gather data about a behaviour or phenomenon in its natural environment.

This method often involves recording, counting, describing, and categorising actions and events. Naturalistic observation can include both qualitative and quantitative elements, but to assess correlation, you collect data that can be analysed quantitatively (e.g., frequencies, durations, scales, and amounts).

Naturalistic observation lets you easily generalise your results to real-world contexts, and you can study experiences that aren’t replicable in lab settings. But data analysis can be time-consuming and unpredictable, and researcher bias may skew the interpretations.

Secondary data

Instead of collecting original data, you can also use data that has already been collected for a different purpose, such as official records, polls, or previous studies.

Using secondary data is inexpensive and fast, because data collection is complete. However, the data may be unreliable, incomplete, or not entirely relevant, and you have no control over the reliability or validity of the data collection procedures.

After collecting data, you can statistically analyse the relationship between variables using correlation or regression analyses, or both. You can also visualise the relationships between variables with a scatterplot.

Different types of correlation coefficients and regression analyses are appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions .

Correlation analysis

Using a correlation analysis, you can summarise the relationship between variables into a correlation coefficient : a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. With this number, you’ll quantify the degree of the relationship between variables.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, also known as Pearson’s r , is commonly used for assessing a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

Correlation coefficients are usually found for two variables at a time, but you can use a multiple correlation coefficient for three or more variables.

Regression analysis

With a regression analysis , you can predict how much a change in one variable will be associated with a change in the other variable. The result is a regression equation that describes the line on a graph of your variables.

You can use this equation to predict the value of one variable based on the given value(s) of the other variable(s). It’s best to perform a regression analysis after testing for a correlation between your variables.

It’s important to remember that correlation does not imply causation . Just because you find a correlation between two things doesn’t mean you can conclude one of them causes the other, for a few reasons.

Directionality problem

If two variables are correlated, it could be because one of them is a cause and the other is an effect. But the correlational research design doesn’t allow you to infer which is which. To err on the side of caution, researchers don’t conclude causality from correlational studies.

Third variable problem

A confounding variable is a third variable that influences other variables to make them seem causally related even though they are not. Instead, there are separate causal links between the confounder and each variable.

In correlational research, there’s limited or no researcher control over extraneous variables . Even if you statistically control for some potential confounders, there may still be other hidden variables that disguise the relationship between your study variables.

Although a correlational study can’t demonstrate causation on its own, it can help you develop a causal hypothesis that’s tested in controlled experiments.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2022, December 05). Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/correlational-research-design/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, quasi-experimental design | definition, types & examples, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods.

Quantitative Research Methods

• Introduction
• Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
• Hypothesis Testing
• Regression and Correlation
• Time Series
• Meta-Analysis
• Mixed Methods
• Additional Resources
• Get Research Help

Correlation is the relationship or association between two variables. There are multiple ways to measure correlation, but the most common is Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), which tells you the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. The value of r has a range of -1 to 1 (0 indicates no relationship). Values of r closer to -1 or 1 indicate a stronger relationship and values closer to 0 indicate a weaker relationship.  Because Pearson's coefficient only picks up on linear relationships, and there are many other ways for variables to be associated, it's always best to plot your variables on a scatter plot, so that you can visually inspect them for other types of correlation.

• Correlation Penn State University tutorial
• Correlation and Causation Australian Bureau of Statistics Article

Spurious Relationships

It's important to remember that correlation does not always indicate causation. Two variables can be correlated without either variable causing the other. For instance, ice cream sales and drownings might be correlated, but that doesn't mean that ice cream causes drownings—instead, both ice cream sales and drownings increase when the weather is hot. Relationships like this are called spurious correlations.

• Spuriousness Harvard Business Review article.
• New Evidence for Theory of The Stork A satirical article demonstrating the dangers of confusing correlation with causation.

Regression is a statistical method for estimating the relationship between two or more variables. In theory, regression can be used to predict the value of one variable (the dependent variable) from the value of one or more other variables (the independent variable/s or predictor/s). There are many different types of regression, depending on the number of variables and the properties of the data that one is working with, and each makes assumptions about the relationship between the variables. (For instance, most types of regression assume that the variables have a linear relationship.) Therefore, it is important to understand the assumptions underlying the type of regression that you use and how to properly interpret its results. Because regression will always output a relationship, whether or not the variables are truly causally associated, it is also important to carefully select your predictor variables.

• A Refresher on Regression Analysis Harvard Business Review article.
• Introductory Business Statistics - Regression

Simple Linear Regression

Simple linear regression estimates a linear relationship between one dependent variable and one independent variable.

• Simple Linear Regression Tutorial Penn State University Tutorial
• Statistics 101: Linear Regression, The Very Basics YouTube video from Brandon Foltz.

Multiple Linear Regression

Multiple linear regression estimates a linear relationship between one dependent variable and two or more independent variables.

• Multiple Linear Regression Tutorial Penn State University Tutorial
• Multiple Regression Basics NYU course materials.
• Statistics 101: Multiple Linear Regression, The Very Basics YouTube video from Brandon Foltz.

If you do a subject search for Regression Analysis you'll see that the library has over 200 books about regression.  Select books are listed below.  Also, note that econometrics texts will often include regression analysis and other related methods.  

Search for ebooks using Quicksearch .  Use keywords to search for e-books about Regression .  

• << Previous: Hypothesis Testing
• Next: ANOVA >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 1:12 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/quant-methods

Statistics Resources

• Excel - Tutorials
• Basic Probability Rules
• Single Event Probability
• Complement Rule
• Intersections & Unions
• Compound Events
• Levels of Measurement
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Entering Data
• Central Tendency
• Data and Tests
• Displaying Data
• Discussing Statistics In-text
• SEM and Confidence Intervals
• Two-Way Frequency Tables
• Empirical Rule
• Finding Probability
• Accessing SPSS
• Chart and Graphs
• Frequency Table and Distribution
• Descriptive Statistics
• Converting Raw Scores to Z-Scores
• Converting Z-scores to t-scores
• Split File/Split Output
• Partial Eta Squared
• Downloading and Installing G*Power: Windows/PC
• Correlation
• Testing Parametric Assumptions
• One-Way ANOVA
• Two-Way ANOVA
• Repeated Measures ANOVA
• Goodness-of-Fit
• Test of Association

Pearson's r

• Point Biserial
• Mediation and Moderation
• Simple Linear Regression
• Multiple Linear Regression
• Binomial Logistic Regression
• Multinomial Logistic Regression
• Independent Samples T-test
• Dependent Samples T-test
• Testing Assumptions
• T-tests using SPSS
• T-Test Practice
• Predictive Analytics This link opens in a new window
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Null & Alternative Hypotheses
• One-Tail vs. Two-Tail
• Alpha & Beta
• Associated Probability
• Decision Rule
• Statement of Conclusion
• Statistics Group Sessions

The Pearson correlation is appropriate when both variables being compared are of a continuous level of measurement (interval or ratio). Use the Levels of Measurement tab to learn more about determining the appropriate level of measurement for your variables.

Assumptions

• Independence of cases - determined by research design
• Linearity - assessed through visual assessment of a scatterplot
• No significant outliers - identified through visual examination of scatterplot and other means
• Homoscedasticity - assessed through visual examination of residuals scatterplot (should be approximately rectangular in shape)

Running Pearson Correlation in SPSS

• Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate
• Move variables of interest into the "Variables" box (they must be scale variables)
• Select "Pearson" as the test.
• You may use the "Options" button to select descriptive statistics you wish to include as well.
• Click "OK" to run the test.

Interpreting the Output

The results will generate in a matrix. You can ignore any boxes that show a "1" as the correlation value as these are simply the variable correlated with itself. These values will form a diagonal across the matrix that can be used to help you focus on the correct values. You only need to explore the correlation values on half of the matrix. APA Style uses the bottom half.

With the release of SPSS 27, users now have the option to only produce the lower half of the table, which is in line with APA Style and makes it easier to identify the correct correlation values.

Reporting Results

When reporting the results of the correlation analysis, APA Style has very specific requirements on what information should be included. Below is the key information required for reporting the Pearson Correlation results. You want to replace the red text with the appropriate values from your output.

r ( degrees of freedom ) =  the  r  statistic ,  p  =  p  value .

Example: A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between ice cream sales and shark attacks. There was a moderate, positive correlation between ice cream sales and the number of shark attacks, which was statistically significant ( r (13) = .706,  p  < .05).

• When reporting the p-value, there are two ways to approach it. One is when the results are not significant. In that case, you want to report the p-value exactly: p = .24. The other is when the results are significant. In this case, you can report the p-value as being less than the level of significance: p < .05.
• The  r  statistic should be reported to two decimal places without a 0 before the decimal point: .36
• Degrees of freedom for this test are N - 2, where "N" represents the number of people in the sample. N can be found in the correlation output.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Correlation
• Next: Spearman's >>
• Last Updated: Jul 16, 2024 11:19 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/statsresources

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

1.6 - (pearson) correlation coefficient, \(r\).

The correlation coefficient, r, is directly related to the coefficient of determination \(R^{2}\) in an obvious way. If \(R^{2}\) is represented in decimal form, e.g. 0.39 or 0.87, then all we have to do to obtain r is to take the square root of \(R^{2}\):

\(r= \pm \sqrt{R^2}\)

The sign of r depends on the sign of the estimated slope coefficient \(b_{1}\):

• If \(b_{1}\) is negative, then r takes a negative sign.
• If \(b_{1}\) is positive, then r takes a positive sign.

That is, the estimated slope and the correlation coefficient r always share the same sign. Furthermore, because \(R^{2}\) is always a number between 0 and 1, the correlation coefficient r is always a number between -1 and 1.

One advantage of r is that it is unitless, allowing researchers to make sense of correlation coefficients calculated on different data sets with different units. The "unitless-ness" of the measure can be seen from an alternative formula for r , namely:

If x is the height of an individual measured in inches and y is the weight of the individual measured in pounds, then the units for the numerator are inches × pounds. Similarly, the units for the denominator are inches × pounds. Because they are the same, the units in the numerator and denominator cancel each other out, yielding a "unitless" measure.

Another formula for r that you might see in the regression literature is one that illustrates how the correlation coefficient r is a function of the estimated slope coefficient \(b_{1}\):

\(r=\dfrac{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(x_i-\bar{x})^2}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(y_i-\bar{y})^2}}\times b_1\)

We are readily able to see from this version of the formula that:

• If the estimated slope \(b_{1}\) of the regression line is 0, then the correlation coefficient r must also be 0.

That's enough with the formulas! As always, we will let statistical software such as Minitab do the dirty calculations for us. Here's what Minitab's output looks like for the skin cancer mortality and latitude example ( Skin Cancer Data ):

Correlation: Mort, Lat

Pearson correlation of Mort and Lat = -0.825

The output tells us that the correlation between skin cancer mortality and latitude is -0.825 for this data set. Note that it doesn't matter the order in which you specify the variables:

Correlation: Lat, Mort

The output tells us that the correlation between skin cancer mortality and latitude is still -0.825. What does this correlation coefficient tell us? That is, how do we interpret the Pearson correlation coefficient r ? In general, there is no nice practical operational interpretation for r as there is for \(r^{2}\). You can only use r to make a statement about the strength of the linear relationship between x and y . In general:

• If r = -1, then there is a perfect negative linear relationship between x and y .
• If r = 1, then there is a perfect positive linear relationship between x and y .
• If r = 0, then there is no linear relationship between x and y .

All other values of r tell us that the relationship between x and y is not perfect. The closer r is to 0, the weaker the linear relationship. The closer r is to -1, the stronger the negative linear relationship. And, the closer r is to 1, the stronger the positive linear relationship. As is true for the \(R^{2}\) value, what is deemed a large correlation coefficient r value depends greatly on the research area.

So, what does the correlation of -0.825 between skin cancer mortality and latitude tell us? It tells us:

• The relationship is negative. As the latitude increases, the skin cancer mortality rate decreases (linearly).
• The relationship is quite strong (since the value is pretty close to -1)

MA121: Introduction to Statistics

Pearson's r

This section introduces Pearson's correlation and explains what the typical values represent. It then elaborates on the properties of r, particularly that it is invariant under linear transformation. Finally, it introduces several formulas we can use to compute Pearson's correlation.

Properties of Pearson's r

Learning objectives.

1. State the range of values for Pearson's correlation

2. State the values that represent perfect linear relationships

4. State the effect of linear transformations on Pearson's correlation

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Interpreting Correlation Coefficients

By Jim Frost 145 Comments

What are Correlation Coefficients?

Correlation coefficients measure the strength of the relationship between two variables. A correlation between variables indicates that as one variable changes in value, the other variable tends to change in a specific direction.  Understanding that relationship is useful because we can use the value of one variable to predict the value of the other variable. For example, height and weight are correlated—as height increases, weight also tends to increase. Consequently, if we observe an individual who is unusually tall, we can predict that his weight is also above the average.

In statistics , correlation coefficients are a quantitative assessment that measures both the direction and the strength of this tendency to vary together. There are different types of correlation coefficients that you can use for different kinds of data . In this post, I cover the most common type of correlation—Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Before we get into the numbers, let’s graph some data first so we can understand the concept behind what we are measuring.

Graph Your Data to Find Correlations

Scatterplots are a great way to check quickly for correlation between pairs of continuous data. The scatterplot below displays the height and weight of pre-teenage girls. Each dot on the graph represents an individual girl and her combination of height and weight. These data are actual data that I collected during an experiment.

At a glance, you can see that there is a correlation between height and weight. As height increases, weight also tends to increase. However, it’s not a perfect relationship. If you look at a specific height, say 1.5 meters, you can see that there is a range of weights associated with it. You can also find short people who weigh more than taller people. However, the general tendency that height and weight increase together is unquestionably present—a correlation exists.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient takes all of the data points on this graph and represents them as a single number. In this case, the statistical output below indicates that the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is 0.694.

What do the Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value mean? We’ll interpret the output soon. First, let’s look at a range of possible correlation coefficients so we can understand how our height and weight example fits in.

Related posts : Using Excel to Calculate Correlation and Guide to Scatterplots

How to Interpret Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Pearson’s correlation coefficient is represented by the Greek letter rho ( ρ ) for the population parameter and r for a sample statistic. This correlation coefficient is a single number that measures both the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two continuous variables. Values can range from -1 to +1.

The greater the absolute value of the Pearson correlation coefficient, the stronger the relationship.

• The extreme values of -1 and 1 indicate a perfectly linear relationship where a change in one variable is accompanied by a perfectly consistent change in the other. For these relationships, all of the data points fall on a line. In practice, you won’t see either type of perfect relationship.
• A coefficient of zero represents no linear relationship. As one variable increases, there is no tendency in the other variable to either increase or decrease.
• When the value is in-between 0 and +1/-1, there is a relationship, but the points don’t all fall on a line. As r approaches -1 or 1, the strength of the relationship increases and the data points tend to fall closer to a line.

The sign of the Pearson correlation coefficient represents the direction of the relationship.

• Positive coefficients indicate that when the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable also tends to increase. Positive relationships produce an upward slope on a scatterplot.
• Negative coefficients represent cases when the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable tends to decrease. Negative relationships produce a downward slope.

Statisticians consider Pearson’s correlation coefficients to be a standardized effect size because they indicate the strength of the relationship between variables using unitless values that fall within a standardized range of -1 to +1. Effect sizes help you understand how important the findings are in a practical sense. To learn more about unstandardized and standardized effect sizes, read my post about Effect Sizes in Statistics .

Learn how to calculate correlation in my post, Correlation Coefficient Formula Walkthrough .

Covariance is an unstandardized form of correlation. Learn about it in my posts:

• Covariance: Definition, Formula & Example
• Covariances vs Correlation: Understanding the Differences

Examples of Positive and Negative Correlation Coefficients

A positive correlation example is the relationship between the speed of a wind turbine and the amount of energy it produces. As the turbine speed increases, electricity production also increases.

A negative correlation example is the relationship between outdoor temperature and heating costs. As the temperature increases, heating costs decrease.

Graphs for Different Correlation Coefficients

Graphs always help bring concepts to life. The scatterplots below represent a spectrum of different Pearson correlation coefficients. I’ve held the horizontal and vertical scales of the scatterplots constant to allow for valid comparisons between them.

Discussion about the Scatterplots

For the scatterplots above, I created one positive correlation between the variables and one negative relationship between the variables. Then, I varied only the amount of dispersion between the data points and the line that defines the relationship. That process illustrates how correlation measures the strength of the relationship. The stronger the relationship, the closer the data points fall to the line. I didn’t include plots for weaker correlation coefficients that are closer to zero than 0.6 and -0.6 because they start to look like blobs of dots and it’s hard to see the relationship.

A common misinterpretation is assuming that negative Pearson correlation coefficients indicate that there is no relationship. After all, a negative correlation sounds suspiciously like no relationship. However, the scatterplots for the negative correlations display real relationships. For negative correlation coefficients, high values of one variable are associated with low values of another variable. For example, there is a negative correlation coefficient for school absences and grades. As the number of absences increases, the grades decrease.

Earlier I mentioned how crucial it is to graph your data to understand them better. However, a quantitative measurement of the relationship does have an advantage. Graphs are a great way to visualize the data, but the scaling can exaggerate or weaken the appearance of a correlation. Additionally, the automatic scaling in most statistical software tends to make all data look similar .

Fortunately, Pearson’s correlation coefficients are unaffected by scaling issues. Consequently, a statistical assessment is better for determining the precise strength of the relationship.

Graphs and the relevant statistical measures often work better in tandem.

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients Measure Linear Relationship

Pearson’s correlation coefficients measure only linear relationships. Consequently, if your data contain a curvilinear relationship, the Pearson correlation coefficient will not detect it. For example, the correlation for the data in the scatterplot below is zero. However, there is a relationship between the two variables—it’s just not linear.

This example illustrates another reason to graph your data! Just because the coefficient is near zero, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that there is no relationship.

Spearman’s correlation is a nonparametric alternative to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Use Spearman’s correlation for nonlinear, monotonic relationships and for ordinal data. For more information, read my post Spearman’s Correlation Explained !

Hypothesis Test for Correlation Coefficients

Correlation coefficients have a hypothesis test. As with any hypothesis test, this test takes sample data and evaluates two mutually exclusive statements about the population from which the sample was drawn. For Pearson correlations, the two hypotheses are the following:

• Null hypothesis: There is no linear relationship between the two variables. ρ = 0.
• Alternative hypothesis: There is a linear relationship between the two variables. ρ ≠ 0.

Correlation coefficients that equal zero indicate no linear relationship exists. If your p-value is less than your significance level , the sample contains sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the Pearson correlation coefficient does not equal zero. In other words, the sample data support the notion that the relationship exists in the population.

Related post : Overview of Hypothesis Tests

Interpreting our Height and Weight Correlation Example

Now that we have seen a range of positive and negative relationships, let’s see how our Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.694 fits in. We know that it’s a positive relationship. As height increases, weight tends to increase. Regarding the strength of the relationship, the graph shows that it’s not a very strong relationship where the data points tightly hug a line. However, it’s not an entirely amorphous blob with a very low correlation. It’s somewhere in between. That description matches our moderate correlation coefficient of 0.694.

For the hypothesis test, our p-value equals 0.000. This p-value is less than any reasonable significance level. Consequently, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the relationship is statistically significant. The sample data support the notion that the relationship between height and weight exists in the population of preteen girls.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

I’m sure you’ve heard this expression before, and it is a crucial warning. Correlation between two variables indicates that changes in one variable are associated with changes in the other variable. However, correlation does not mean that the changes in one variable actually cause the changes in the other variable.

Sometimes it is clear that there is a causal relationship. For the height and weight data, it makes sense that adding more vertical structure to a body causes the total mass to increase. Or, increasing the wattage of lightbulbs causes the light output to increase.

However, in other cases, a causal relationship is not possible. For example, ice cream sales and shark attacks have a positive correlation coefficient. Clearly, selling more ice cream does not cause shark attacks (or vice versa). Instead, a third variable, outdoor temperatures, causes changes in the other two variables. Higher temperatures increase both sales of ice cream and the number of swimmers in the ocean, which creates the apparent relationship between ice cream sales and shark attacks.

Beware of spurious correlations!

In statistics, you typically need to perform a randomized, controlled experiment to determine that a relationship is causal rather than merely correlation. Conversely, Correlational Studies will find relationships quickly and easily but they are not suitable for establishing causality.

Learn more about Correlation vs. Causation: Understanding the Differences .

Related posts : Using Random Assignment in Experiments and Observational Studies

How Strong of a Correlation is Considered Good?

What is a good correlation? How high should correlation coefficients be? These are commonly asked questions. I have seen several schemes that attempt to classify correlations as strong, medium, and weak.

However, there is only one correct answer. A Pearson correlation coefficient should accurately reflect the strength of the relationship. Take a look at the correlation between the height and weight data, 0.694. It’s not a very strong relationship, but it accurately represents our data. An accurate representation is the best-case scenario for using a statistic to describe an entire dataset.

The strength of any relationship naturally depends on the specific pair of variables. Some research questions involve weaker relationships than other subject areas. Case in point, humans are hard to predict. Studies that assess relationships involving human behavior tend to have correlation coefficients weaker than +/- 0.6.

However, if you analyze two variables in a physical process, and have very precise measurements, you might expect correlations near +1 or -1. There is no one-size fits all best answer for how strong a relationship should be. The correct values for correlation coefficients depend on your study area.

Taking Correlation to the Next Level with Regression Analysis

Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of just describing the strength of the relationship between height and weight, we could define the relationship itself using an equation? Regression analysis does just that. That analysis finds the line and corresponding equation that provides the best fit to our dataset. We can use that equation to understand how much weight increases with each additional unit of height and to make predictions for specific heights. Read my post where I talk about the regression model for the height and weight data .

Regression analysis allows us to expand on correlation in other ways. If we have more variables that explain changes in weight, we can include them in the model and potentially improve our predictions. And, if the relationship is curved, we can still fit a regression model to the data.

Additionally, a form of the Pearson correlation coefficient shows up in regression analysis. R-squared is a primary measure of how well a regression model fits the data. This statistic represents the percentage of variation in one variable that other variables explain. For a pair of variables, R-squared is simply the square of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. For example, squaring the height-weight correlation coefficient of 0.694 produces an R-squared of 0.482, or 48.2%. In other words, height explains about half the variability of weight in preteen girls.

If you’re learning about statistics and like the approach I use in my blog, check out my Introduction to Statistics book! It’s available at Amazon and other retailers.

Share this:

Reader Interactions

August 17, 2024 at 2:43 pm

Great, thank you!

August 15, 2024 at 9:33 am

Hi Jim. I had a query. Like if we say there is a correlation of 0.68 between x and y variable, then what exactly does this “0.68” as a “number” indicate apart from the fact that we can say there is a moderate association between x and y.

May 7, 2024 at 9:18 am

Is there any benefit to doing both a correlation and a regression test? I don’t think there is – I believe that a regression output will give you the same information a correlation output would plus more. Please could you let me know if that is correct or am I missing something?

May 7, 2024 at 2:08 pm

Hi Charlotte,

In general, you are correct for simple regression, where you have one independent variable and the dependent variable. The R-square for that model is literally the square of the Pearson’s correlation (r) for those two variables. As you mention, regression gives you additional output along with the strength of the relationship.

But there are a few caveats.

Regression is much more flexible than correlation because it allows you to add other variables, fit curvature and include interaction effects. For example, regression allows you to fit curvature between the two variables using polynomials. So, there are cases where using Pearson’s correlation is inappropriate because the data violate some of the assumptions but regression analysis can handle those data acceptably.

But what you say is correct when you’re looking at a straight line relationship between a pair of variables. In that specific case, simple regression and Pearson’s correlation provide consistent information with regression providing more details.

March 12, 2024 at 4:11 am

Hi If you are finding the trend between one type of quantitative discrete data and one type of qualitative ordinal data, what correlation test do you use?

September 9, 2023 at 4:46 am

It could be that the sharks are using ice cream as bait. Maybe the sharks are smarter than we think… Seriously, the ice cream as a cause is not likely, but sometimes a perfectly sensible hypothesis with lots of data behind it can be just plain wrong.

September 9, 2023 at 11:43 pm

It can be wrong in causal sense but if ice cream cones has a non-causal correlation with the number of shark attacks, it can still help you make predictions. Now, if you thought limiting ice cream sales will reduce shark attacks, that’s not going to work!

June 9, 2023 at 1:56 am

What is to be done when two positive items show a negative correlation within one variable.. e.g increase in house help decreases no interruptions in work?? It’s confusing as both r positive questions

June 10, 2023 at 1:09 am

It’s possibly the result of other variables, known as confounding variables (or confounders) that you might not even have recorded. For example, there might be some other variable that correlates with both “house help” and “interruptions at work” that explain the unexpected negative correlation. Perhaps individuals with house help have more activities occurring throughout the day at home. Those activities would then cause more interruptions. So, you might have chain of correlations where the “home activities” and “house help” have positive correlations. Additionally, “home activities” and “interruptions” might have a negative correlation. Given this arrangement, it wouldn’t be surprising to see a negative correlation between “home activities” and “interruptions.”

It goes to show that you need to understand the larger context when analyzing data. Technically, this phenomenon is known as omitted variable bias . Your model (pairwise correlation) omits an important variable (a confounder) which is biasing the results. Click the link to learn more.

The answer is to identify and record the confounding variables and include them in your model, likely a regression model or partial correlation.

May 8, 2023 at 12:58 pm

What if my pearson’s r is 0.187 and p-value is 0.001 do i reject the null hypothesis?

May 8, 2023 at 2:56 pm

Yes! That p-value is below any reasonable significance level. Hence, you can reject the null hypothesis. However, be aware that while the correlation is statistically significant, it is so weak that it probably isn’t practically significant in the real world. In other words, it probably exists in the population you’re assessing but it is too weak to be noticeable/meaningful.

November 30, 2022 at 4:53 am

Thank you, Jim. I really appreciate your help. I will read your post about statistical v practical significance – that sounds really useful. I love how you explain things in such an accessible way.

I have one more question that I was hoping you would be able to help me with, please?

If I have done a correlation test and I have found an extremely weak negative relationship (e.g., -.02) but the relationship is not statistically significant, would this mean that although I have found that there is a very weak negative correlation between the variables in the sample data, this would unlikely to be found in the population. Therefore, I would fail to reject the null hypothesis that the correlation in the population equals zero.

Thank you again for your help and for this wonderful blog.

December 1, 2022 at 1:57 am

You’re very welcome!

In the case where the correlation is not significant, it indicates that you have insufficient evidence to conclude that it does not equal zero. That’s a mouthful but there’s a reason for the convoluted wording. Insignificant results don’t prove that there is no effect, it just indicates that your test didn’t detect an effect in the population. It could be that the effect doesn’t exist in the population OR it could be that your sample size was too small or there’s too much variability in the data.

In short, we say that you failed to reject the null hypothesis.

Basically, you can’t prove a negative (no effect). All you can say is that your study didn’t detect an effect. In this case, it didn’t detect a non-zero correlation.

You can read more about the reason behind the wording failing to reject the null hypothesis and what it means precisely.

November 29, 2022 at 12:39 pm

Thank you for this webpage. It is great. I have a question, which I was hoping you’d be able to help me with please.

I have carried out a correlation test, and from my understanding a null hypothesis would be that there is no relationship between the two variables (the variables are independent – there is no correlation).

The p value is statistically significant (.000), and the Pearson correlation result is -.036.

My understanding is that if there is a statically significant relationship then I would reject the null hypothesis (which suggests there is no relationship between the two variables). My issue is then whether -.036 suggests a very weak relationship or no relationship at all given how close to 0 it is. If it is the latter, would I then say I have failed to reject the null hypothesis even though there is a statisicially significant relationship? Or would I say that I have rejected the null hypothesis because there is a statically significant relationship, but the correlation is very weak.

Any help would be appreciated. Kind regards.

November 29, 2022 at 4:10 pm

What you’re seeing is the difference between statistical significance and practically significance. Yes, your results are statistically significant. You can reject the null hypothesis that rho (the correlation in the population) does not equal zero. Your data provide enough evidence to conclude that the negative correlation exists in the population (not just your sample).

However, as you say, it’s an extremely weak relationship. Even though it’s not zero it is essentially zero in a practical sense. Statistically significant results don’t automatically mean that the effect size (correlation is this case) is meaningful in the real-world. When a test has very high statistical power (e.g., sometimes due to a very large sample size), it can detect trivial effects. Those effects are real but they’re small in size.

I write more about this in my post about statistical vs. practical significance . But, in a nutshell, your correlation coefficient is statistically significant, but it is not a meaningful effect in the real world.

September 28, 2022 at 10:44 am

I have a simple question, only to frame how to use correlation. Imagine a trial with plants, testing different phosphate (Pi) concentrations (like 8) and its effect on plant growth (assessed as mean plant size per Pi concentration, from enough replicates and data validity to perform classical parametric statistics).

In case A, I have a strong (positive) and significant Pearson correlation between these two parameters, and in particular, the 8 average size values show statistical significant differences (ANOVA) between all the Pi concentrations tested.

In case B, I have the same strong (positive) significant Pearson correlation, but there is no any statistical significant difference in term of size between any Pi concentration tested.

My guess is that it may be possible to interpret the case A as Pi is correlated with plant growth; but in case B, no interpretation can be provided given that no significant difference is seen between Pi concentrations on plant size, even if a correlation is obtained. Is this right ? But in this case, if I have 3 out the 8 Pi concentrations which I obtained significant difference on plant size, should I perform correlation only between significant Pi groups or could I still take all the 8 Pi groups to make interpretations ? Thanks in advance !

September 29, 2022 at 7:02 pm

I don’t fully understand your trial. You say that you have a continuous measure of Pi concentration and then average plant sizes. Pearson correlations work with two continuous measures–not a group average. So, you’d need to correlate the Pi concentration with plant size, not average plant size. Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding your description. Please clarify your process. Thanks!

In a more general sense, you have to remember that statistical significance doesn’t necessarily indicate there is a real-world, practical significance to your results. That’s possibly what you’re finding in case B. Although again it’s hard to say if you’re applying correlation to averages.

Statistical significance just indicates that you have reason to believe that a relationship/effect exists in the population. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the effect is large enough to be practically meaningful. For more information, read my post about Practical vs. Statistical Significance .

August 16, 2022 at 11:16 am

This was very educative and easy to follow through for a statistics noob such as me. Thanks! I like your books. Which one is most suited for a beginner level of knowledge?

August 17, 2022 at 12:20 am

My Introduction to Statistics book is the best to get started with for beginners. Click the link to see a post where I discuss it and included a full table of contents.

After reading that, you’d be ready to read both of my two other books: Hypothesis Testing Regression Analysis

May 16, 2022 at 2:45 pm

Jim, Nassim Taleb makes the point on YouTube (search for Taleb and correlation) that an r = 0.10 is much closer to zero than to r = 0.20) implying that the distribution function for r is very dependent on the r in the population, and the sample size and that the scale of -1.0 to +1.0 is not a scale separated by equal units. He then warns of significance tests because r is a random variable and subject to sampling fluctuations and r = .25 could easily be zero due to sampling error (especially for small sample sizes). Can you please discuss if the scale of r = -1.0 to 1.0 is set in equidistant units, or units that only superficially look like they are equidistant?

May 16, 2022 at 6:41 pm

I did a quick search and found a video where he’s talking about using correlation in the financial and investment areas. He seems to be saying that correlation is not the correct tool for that context. I can’t talk to that point because I’m not familiar with the context.

However, yes, I can help you out with most of the other points!

I’ll start with the fact that the scale of -1 to +1 is, in some ways, not consistent. To start, correlation coefficients are a standardized effect. As such, they are unitless. You can’t link them to anything real, but they help you compare between disparate types of studies. In other words, they excel at providing a standard basis of comparison between studies. However, they’re not as good for knowing what the statistic actually means, except for a few specific values, -1, +1, and 0. And perhaps that’s why Taleb isn’t fond of them. (At 20 minutes, I didn’t watch the entire video.)

However, we can convert r to R-squared and it becomes more meaningful. R-squared tells us how much of the variance the relationship accounts for. And, as the name implies, you simply square r to get R-squared. It’s in R-squared where you see that the difference between r of 0.1 and 0.2 is different from say 0.8 and 0.9. When you go from 0.1 to 0.2, R-squared increases from 0.01 to 0.04, an increase of 3%. And note that at those correlations, we’re only explaining between 1 – 4% of the variance. Virtually nothing! Now, if we look at going from an r of 0.8 to 0.9, R-squared increases from 0.64 to 0.81, or 17%. So, we have the same size increase in r (0.1) in both cases, but R-squared increases by 3% in one case and 17% in the other. Also, notice how at a r of 0.5, you’re only accounting for 25% of the variance. That’s not very much. You need an r of 0.707 to explain half the variance (50%). Another way to think of it is that the range of r [0, 0.7] accounts for half the variance while r [0.7, 1] accounts for the other half.

I agree with the point that r = 0.1 is virtually nothing. In fact, you need an r of 0.316 to explain even a tenth (10%) of the variability. I also agree that fixed differences in r (e.g., 0.1) indicates different changes in the strength of the relationship, as I illustrate above. I think those points are valid.

Below, I include a graph showing r vs. R-squared and the curved line indicates that the relationship between the two statistics changes (the inconsistency you mention). If the relationship was consistent, it would be a straight line. For me, R-squared is the better statistic, particularly in conjunction with regression analysis, which provides more information about the nature of the relationships. Of course, the negative range of r produces the mirror graph but the same ideas apply.

I think correlation coefficients (r) have some other shortcomings. They describe the strength of the relationship but not the actual relationship. And they don’t account for other variables. Regression analysis handles those aspects and I generally prefer that methodology. For me, simple correlation just doesn’t provide enough information by itself in most cases. You also typically don’t get residual plots so you can be sure that you’re satisfying the assumptions (Pearson’s correlation (r) is essentially a linear model).

The sample r does depend on the relationship in the population. But that’s true for all sample statistics–as I write in my post, Sample Statistics Are Always Wrong to Some Extent! I don’t think it’s any worse for correlation than other types of sample statistics. As you increase your sample size, the estimate’s precision will increase (i.e., the error bars become smaller).

I think significance tests are valid for correlation. Yes, it’s subject to sampling fluctuations ( sampling error ) but so are all sample based statistics. Hypothesis testing is designed to factor that in. In fact, significance testing specifically helps you distinguish between cases where the sample r = 0.25 might represent 0 in the population vs. cases where that is unlikely. That’s the very intention of significance testing, so I strongly disagree with that point!

April 9, 2022 at 2:20 am

Thank you for the fast response!! I have alaso read the Spearman’s Rho article (very insightful). In my scatterplot it is suggesting that there is no correlation (completely random distribution). However, I would still like to test the correlation but in the Spearmans’s Rho article you mentioned that if it is there is no correlation, both the spearman’s Rho value and Pearson’s correlation value would be close to zero. Is it also possible that one value is positive and one is negative? My results right now are R2 Linear= 0.003, Pearson correlation= .058, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient= -0.19. Should I base the rejection of either of my hypothesises on Spaerman’s value or Pearson’s value

Thank you so much!!!

April 9, 2022 at 10:42 pm

I’m glad that it was helpful! It’s definitely possible for correlations to switch directions like that. That’s especially true because both correlations are barely different from zero. So, it wouldn’t take much to cause them to be on opposite sides of zero. The R-squared is telling you that the Pearson’s correlation explains hardly any of the variability.

April 8, 2022 at 7:05 pm

Thank you for this post!! I was wondering, I did a scatterplot which gave me a R2 value of 0.003. The fitline showed a really weak positive correlation which I wanted to test with the Spearmans rho. However, this value is showing a negative value (negative relationship). Do you maybe know why it is showing different correlations since I am using the exact same values?

April 8, 2022 at 7:51 pm

The R-squared value and slope you’re seeing are related to Pearson’s correlation, which differs from Spearmans rho. They’re different statistical measures using different methods, so it’s not surprising that their values can be different. For more information, read my post about Spearman’s Rho .

April 6, 2022 at 3:37 am

Hi Jim, I had a question. It’s kinda complicated but I try my best to explain it well.

I run a correlation test between objective social isolation and subjective social isolation. To measure OSI, I used an instrument called LSNS-6, while I used R-UCLA Loneliness Scale to measure the SSI. Here is the scoring guide for the instruments: * higher score obtained in LSNS-6 = low objective social isolation * higher score obtained in R-UCLA Loneliness scale = high subjective social isolation

After I run the correlation test, I found the value was r= -.437.

My question is, did the value represents correlation between variables (meaning when someone is objectively isolated, they are less likely to be subjectively isolated and vice versa) OR the value represents correlation between scores of instruments used (meaning when someone score higher in LSNS-6, they will had a lower scores for R-UCLA Loneliness Scale and vice versa)? I had confusions due to the scoring guide. I hope you can help me.

Thank you Jim!

April 8, 2022 at 8:17 pm

This specific correlation is a bit tricky because, based on what you wrote, the LSNS-6 is inverted. High LSNS-6 scores correspond to low objective social isolation. Let’s work through this example.

The negative correlation (-0.437) indicates that high LSNS-6 scores tend to correlate with low R-UCLA scores. Now, if we “translate” the instrument measures into what the scores mean as constructs, low objective social isolation tends to correspond low subjective social isolation.

In other words, there is a negative correlation between the instrument scores. However, there is a positive correlation between the concepts of objective social isolation and subjective isolation, which makes theoretical sense.

The reason why the instrument scores have a negative correlation and the constructs having a positive correlation goes back to the fact that high LSNs-6 scores relate to low objective isolation.

I hope that helps!

April 2, 2022 at 7:16 am

Thanks so much for the highly helpful statistical resources on this website. I am a bit confused about an analysis I carried out. My scatter plot show a kind of negative relationship between two variables but my Pearson’s correlation coefficient results tend to say something different. r= -0.198 and p-value of 0.082. I would appreciate clarification on this.

April 4, 2022 at 3:56 pm

I’m not sure what is surprising you? Can you be more specific?

It sounds like your scatterplot displays a negative correlation and your negative correlation is also negative, which sounds consistent. It’s a fairly weak correlation. The p-value indicates that your data don’t provide quite enough evidence to conclude that the correlation you see in the sample via the scatterplot and correlation coefficient also exists in the population. It might just be sampling error.

January 14, 2022 at 8:31 am

Hi Jim, Andrew here.

I am using a Pearson test for two variables: LifeSatisfaction and JobSatisfaction. I have gotten a P-Value 0.000 whilst my R-Value is 0.338. Can you explain to me what relation this is? Am I right in thinking that is strong significance with a weak correlation? And that there is no significant correlation between the two.

January 14, 2022 at 4:59 pm

What you’re running in to is the difference between statistical significance and practical significance in the real world. A statistically significant results, such as your correlation, suggests that the relationship you observe in your sample also exists in the population as a whole. However, statistical significance says nothing about how important that relationship is in a practical sense.

Your correlation results suggest that a positive correlation exists between life satisfaction and job satisfaction amongst the population from which you drew your sample. However, the fairly weak correlation of 0.338 might not be of practical significant. People with satisfying jobs might be a little happier but perhaps not to a noticeable degree.

So, for your correlation, statistical significance–yes! Practical significant–maybe not.

For more information, read my post about statistical significance vs. practical significance where I go into it in more detail.

January 7, 2022 at 7:07 pm

Thank you, Jim, will do.

January 7, 2022 at 5:07 pm

Hello Jim, I just came across this website. I have a query.

I wrote the following for a report: Table 5 shows the associations between all the domains. The correlation coefficients between the environment and the economy, social, and culture domains are rs=0.335 (weak), rs=0.427 (low) and rs=0.374 (weak), respectively. The correlation coefficient between the economy and the social and culture domains are rs=0.224 and rs=0.157, respectively and are negligible. The correlation coefficient (rs =0.451) between the social and the culture domains is low, positive, and significant. These weak to low correlation coefficient values imply that changes in one domain are not correlated strongly with changes in the related domain.

The comment I received was: Correlation studies are meant to see relationships- not influence- even if there is a positive correlation between x and y, one can never conclude if x or y is the reason for such correlation. It can never determine which variables have the most influence. Thus the caution and need to re-word for some of the lines above. A correlation study also does not take into account any extraneous variables that might influence the correlation outcome.

I am not sure how I should reword? I have checked several sources and their interpretations are similar to mine, Please advise. Thank you

January 7, 2022 at 9:25 pm

Personally, I think your wording is fine. Appropriately, you don’t suggest that correlation implies causation. You state that there is correlation. So, I’m not sure why the reviewer has an issue with it.

Perhaps the reviewer wants an explicit statement to that effect? “As with all correlation studies, these correlations do not necessarily represent causal relationships.”

The second portion of the review comment about extraneous variables is, in my opinion, more relevant. Pairwise correlations don’t control for the effects of other variables. Omitted variable bias can affect these pairs. I write about this in a post about omitted variable bias . These biases can exaggerate or minimize the apparent strength of pairwise correlations.

You can avoid that problem by using partial correlations or multiple regression analysis. Although, it’s not necessarily a problem. It’s just a possibility.

January 5, 2022 at 8:52 pm

Is it possible to compare two correlation coefficients? For example, let’s say that I have three data points (A, B, and C) for each of 75 subjects. If I run a Pearson’s on the A&B survey points and receive a result of .006, while the Pearson’s on the A&C survey points is .215…although both are not significant, can I say that there is a stronger correlation between A&C than between A&B? thank you!

January 6, 2022 at 8:31 pm

I am not aware of test that will assess whether the difference between two correlation coefficients is statistically significant. I know you can do that with regression coefficients , so you might want to determine whether you can use that approach. Click the link to learn more.

However, I can guess that your two coefficients probably are not significantly different and thus you can’t say one is higher. Each of your hypothesis tests are assessing whether one of the coefficients is significantly different from zero. In both cases (0.006 and 0.215), neither are significantly different from zero. Because both of your coefficients are on the same side of zero (positive) the distance between them is even smaller than your larger coefficients (0.215) distance from zero. Hence, that difference probably is also not statistically significant. However, one muddling issue is that with the two datasets combined you have a larger total sample size than either alone, which might allow a supposed combined test to determine that the smaller difference is significant. But that’s uncertain and probably unlikely.

There’s a more fundamental issue to consider beyond statistical significance . . . practical significance. The correlation of 0.006 is so small it might as well be zero. The other is 0.215 (which according to the hypothesis test, also might as well be zero). However, in practical terms, a correlation of 0.215 is also a very weak correlation. So, even if its hypothesis test said it was statistically significant from zero, it’s a puny correlation that doesn’t provide much predictive power at all. So, you’re looking at the difference between two practically insignificant correlations. Even if the larger sample size for a combined test did indicate the difference is statistically significant, that difference (0.215 – 0.006 = 0.209) almost certainly is not practically significant in a real-world sense.

But, if you really want to know the statistical answer, look into the regression method.

May 16, 2022 at 2:57 pm

JIm – here is a YT purporting to demonstrate how to compare correlation coefficients for statistical significance. I’m not a statistician and cannot vouch for the contents. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipqUoAN2m4g

May 16, 2022 at 7:22 pm

That seems like a very non-standard approach in the YT video. And, with a sample size of 200 (100 males, 100 females), even very small effect sizes should be significant. So, I have some doubts about that process, but I haven’t dug into it. It might be totally valid, but it seems inefficient in terms of statistical power for the sample size.

Here’s how I would’ve done that analysis. Instead of correlation, I’d use regression with an interaction effect. I’d want to model the relationship between the amount time studying for a test and the scores. Additionally, I also gather 100 males and females and want to see if the relationship between time studying and test scores differs between genders. In regression, that’s an interaction effect. It’s the same question the YT video assesses, but using a different approach that provides a whole lot more answers.

To see that approach in action, read my post about Comparing Regression Lines Using Hypothesis Tests . In that post, I refer to comparing the relationships between two conditions, A and B. You can equate those two conditions to gender (male and female). And I look at the relationship between Input and Output, which you can equate to Time Studying and Test Score, respectively. While reading that post, notice how much more information you obtain using that approach than just the two correlation coefficients and whether they’re significantly different.

That’s what I mean by generally preferring regression analysis over simple correlation.

December 9, 2021 at 7:33 pm

salut Jim merci beaucoup pour cette explication je travaille sur un article et je veux calculer la taille d’echantillon pour critiquer la taille d’echantillon utulisé est ce que c posiible de deduire le P par le graphqiue et puis appliquer la regle pour d”duire N ?

December 12, 2021 at 11:57 pm

Unfortunately, I don’t speak French. However, I used Google Translate and I think I understand your question.

No, you can’t calculate the p-value by looking at a graph. You need the actual data values to do that. However, there is another approach you can use to determine whether they have a reasonable sample size.

You can use power and sample size software (such as the free G*Power ) to determine a good sample size. Keep in mind that the sample size you need depends on the strength of the correlation in the population. If the population has a correlation of 0.3, then you’ll need 67 data points to obtain a statistical power of 0.8. However, if the population correlation is higher, the required sample size declines while maintaining the statistical power of 0.8. For instance, for population correlations of 0.5 and 0.8, you’ll only need sample sizes of 23 and 8, respectively.

Using this approach, you’ll at least be able to determine whether they’re using a reasonable sample size given the size of correlation that they report even though you won’t know the p-value.

Hopefully, the reported the sample size, but, if not, you can just count the number of dots on the scatterplot.

November 19, 2021 at 4:47 pm

Hi Jim. How do I interpret r(12) = -.792, p < .001 for Pearson Coefficiient Correlation?

October 26, 2021 at 4:53 am

Hi If the correlation between the two independent constructs/variables and the dependent variable/constructs is medium or large, what must the manager to improve the two independent constructs/variables

October 7, 2021 at 1:12 am

Hi Jim, First of all thank you, this is an excellent resource and has really helped clarify some queries I had. I have run a Pearson’s r test on some stats software to analyse relationship between increasing age and need for friendship. The return is r = 0.052 and p = 0.381. Am I right in assuming there is a very slight positive correlation between the variables but one that is not statistically significant so the null hypothesis cannot be rejected? Kind regards

October 7, 2021 at 11:26 pm

Hi Victoria,

That correlation is so close to 0 that it essentially means that there is no relationship between your two variables. In fact, it’s so close to zero that calling it a very slight positive correlation might be exaggerating by a bit.

As for the p-value, you’re correct. It’s testing the null hypothesis that the correlation equals zero. Because your p-value is greater than any reasonable significance level, you fail to reject the null. Your data provide insufficient evidence to conclude that the correlation doesn’t equal zero (no effect).

If you haven’t, you should graph your data in a scatterplot. Perhaps there’s a U shaped relationship that Pearson’s won’t detect?

July 21, 2021 at 11:23 pm

No Jim, I mean to ask, let’s assume correlation between variable x and y is 0.91, how do we interpret the remaining 0.09 assuming correlation at 1 is strong positive linear correlation. ?

Is this because of diversification, correlation residual or any error term?

July 21, 2021 at 11:29 pm

Oh, ok. Basically, you’re asking why it’s not a perfect correlation of 1? What explains that difference of 0.09 between the observed correlation and 1? There are several reasons. The typical reason is that most relationships aren’t perfect. There’s usually a certain amount of inherent uncertainty between two variables. It’s the nature of the relationship. Occasionally, you might find very near perfect correlations for relationships governed by physical laws.

If you were to have pair of variables that should have a perfect correlation for theoretical reasons, you might still observe an imperfect correlation thanks to measurement error.

July 20, 2021 at 12:49 pm

If two variable has a correlation of 0.91 what is 0.09, in the equation?

July 21, 2021 at 10:59 pm

I’d need more information/context to be able to answer that question. Is it a regression coefficient?

June 30, 2021 at 4:21 pm

You are a great resource. Thank you for being so responsive. I’m sure I’ll be bugging you some more in the future.

June 30, 2021 at 12:48 pm

Jim, using Excel, I just calculated that the correlation between two variables (A and B) is .57, which I believe you would consider to be “moderate.” My question is, how can I translate that correlation into a statement that predicts what would happen to B if A goes up by 1 point. Thanks in advance for your help and most especially for your clarity.

June 30, 2021 at 2:59 pm

Hi Gerry, to get that type of information, you’ll need use regression analysis. Read my post about using Excel to perform regression for details . For your example, be sure to use A as the independent variable and B as the dependent variable. Then look at the regression coefficient for A to get your answer!

May 24, 2021 at 11:51 pm

Hey Man, I’m taking my stats final this week and I’m so glad I found you! Thank you for saving random college kids like me!

May 19, 2021 at 8:38 am

Hi, I am Nasib Zaman The Spearman correlation between high temperature and COVID-19 cases was significant ( r = 0.393). Correlation between UV index and COVID-19 cases was also significant ( r = 0.386). Is it true?

May 20, 2021 at 1:31 am

Both suggests that as temperature and UV increase that the number of COVID cases increases. Although it is a weak correlation. I don’t know whether that’s true or not. You’d have to assess the validity of the data to make that determination. Additionally, their might be confounding variables at play, which could bias the correlations. I have no way of knowing.

April 12, 2021 at 1:49 pm

I am using Pearson’s correlation co-efficient to to express the strength of relationship between my two variables on happiness, would this be an appropriate use?

Happiness Diet RelationshipSatisfaction

Pearson Correlation

Happiness 1.000 .310 . 416 Diet .310 1.000 .193 RelationshipSatisfaction .416 .193 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00 0.00 Happiness Diet 0.00 0.00 RelationshipSatisfaction 0.00 0.00

N Happiness 1297 1297 1297 Diet 1297 1297 1297 RelationshipSatisfaction 1297 1297 1297

If so, would I be right to say that because the coefficient was r= (.193), it suggests that there is not too strong a relationship between the two independent variables. Can I use anything else to indicate significance levels?

March 29, 2021 at 3:12 am

I just want to say that your posts are great, but the QA section in the comments is even greater!

Congrats, Jim.

March 29, 2021 at 2:57 pm

Thanks so much!! 🙂

And, I’m really glad you enjoy the QA in the comments. I always request readers to post their questions in the comments section of the relevant post so the answers benefit everyone!

March 24, 2021 at 1:16 am

Thank you very much. This question was troubling me since last some days , thanks for helping.

Have a nice day…

March 24, 2021 at 1:34 am

You’re very welcome, Ronak! I’m glad to help!

March 22, 2021 at 12:56 pm

Nalin here. I found your article to be very clarifying conceptually. I had a doubt.

So there is this dataset I have been working on and I calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between the target variable and the predictor variables. I found out that none of the predictor variables had a correlation >0.1 and <-0.1 with the target variable, hence indicating that no linear relationship exists between them.

How can I verify whether or not any non-linear relationships exist between these pairs of variables or not? Will a scatterplot confirm my claims?

March 23, 2021 at 3:09 pm

Yes, graphing the data in a scatterplot is always a good idea. While you might not have a linear relationship, you could have a curvilinear relationship. A scatterplot would reveal that.

One other thing to watch out for is omitted variable bias. When you perform correlation on a pair of variables, you’re not factoring in other relevant variables that can be confounding the results. To see what I mean, read my post about omitted variable bias . In it, I start with a correlation that appear to be zero even though there actually is a relationship. After I accounted for another variable, there was a significant relationship between the original pair of variables! Just another thing to watch out for that isn’t obvious!

March 20, 2021 at 3:23 am

Yes, I am also doing well…

I am having some subsequent queries…

By overall trend you mean that correlation coefficient will capture how y is changing with respect to x (means y is increasing or decreasing with increase or decrease in x), am i interpreting correctly ?

March 22, 2021 at 12:25 am

This is something should be clear by examining the scatterplot. Will a straight line fit the dots? Do the dots fall randomly about a straight line or are there patterns? If a straight line fits the data, Pearson’s correlation is valid. However, if it does not, then Pearson’s is not valid. Graphing is the best way to make the determination.

Thanks for the image.

March 23, 2021 at 3:41 pm

Hi again Ronak!

On your graph, the data points are the red line (actually lots and lots of data points and not really a line!). And, the green line is the linear fit. You don’t usually think of Pearson’s correlation as modeling the data but it uses a linear fit. So, the green line is how Pearson’s correlation models your data. You can see that the model doesn’t fit the data adequately. There are systematic (i.e., non-random departures) from the data points. Right there you know that Pearson’s correlation is invalid for these data.

Your data has an upward trend. That is, as X increases, Y also increases. And Pearson’s partially captures that trend. Hence, the positive slope for the green line and the positive correlation you calculated. But, it’s not perfect. You need a better model! In terms of correlation, the graph displays a monotonic relationship and Spearman’s correlation would be a good candidate. Or, you could use regression analysis and include a polynomial to model the curvature . Either of these methods will produce a better fit and more accurate results!

March 18, 2021 at 11:01 am

i am ronak from india. how are you?…hoping corona has not troubled you much. you have simplified concept very well. you are doing amazing job ,great work. i have one doubt and want to clarify it.

Question : whenever we talk correlation coefficient we talk in terms of linear relationship. but i have calculated correlation coefficient for relationship Y vs X^3.

X variable : 1 to 10000 Y = X^3

and correlation coefficient is coming around 0.9165. it is strange even relationship is not linear still it is giving me very high correlation coefficient.

March 19, 2021 at 3:53 pm

I’m doing well here. Just hunkering down like everyone else! I hope you’re doing well too! 🙂

For your data, I’d recommend graphing them in a scatterplot and fit a linear trend line. You can do that in Excel. If your data follow an S-shaped cubic relationship, it is still possible to get a relatively strong correlation. You’ll be able to see how that happens in the scatterplot with trend line. There’s an overall trend to the data that your line follows, but it does hug the curves. However, if you fit a model with a cubic term to fit the curves, you’ll get a better model.

So, let’s switch from a correlation to R-squared. Your correlation of 0.9165 corresponds to an R-squared of 0.84. I’m literally squaring your correlation coefficient to get the R-squared value. Now, fit a regression model with the quadratic and cubic terms to fit your data. You’ll find that your R-squared for this model is higher than for the linear model.

In short, the linear correlation is capturing the overall trend in the data but doesn’t fit the data points as well as the model designed for curvilinear data. Your correlation seems good but it doesn’t fully fit the data.

March 11, 2021 at 10:56 am

Hi Jim Do the partial correlation include the continuous (scale) variables all times? Is it possible to include other types of variables (as nominal or ordinal)? Regards Jagar

March 16, 2021 at 12:30 am

Pearson correlations are for continuous data that follow a linear relationship. If you have ordinal data or continuous data that follow a monotonic relationship, you can use Spearman’s correlation.

There are correlations specifically for nominal data. I need to write a blog post about those!

March 10, 2021 at 11:45 am

if the correlation coefficient is 0.153 what type of correlation is it?

February 14, 2021 at 1:49 pm

February 12, 2021 at 8:09 pm

If my r value when finding correlation between two things is -0.0258 what would that be negative weak correlation or something else?

February 14, 2021 at 12:08 am

Hi Dez, your correlation coefficient is essentially zero, which indicates no relationship between the variables. As one variable increases, there is no tendency for the variable to either increase or decrease. There’s just no relationship between them according to your data.

January 9, 2021 at 12:10 pm

my coefficient correlation between my independent variables (anger, anxiety, happiness, satisfaction) and a dependent variable(entrepreneurial decision making behavior) is 0.401, 0.303, 0.369, 0.384.

what does this mean? how do i interpret explain this? what’s the relationship?

January 10, 2021 at 1:33 am

It means that separately each independent variable (IV) has a positive correlation with the dependent variable (DV). As each IV increases, the DV tends to increase. However, it is a fairly weak correlation. Additionally, these correlations don’t control for confounding variables. You should perform a regression analysis because you have your IVs and DV. Your model will tell how much variability the IVs account for in the DV collectively. And, it will control for the other variables in the model, which can help reduce omitted variable bias.

The information in this post should help you interpret your correlation coefficients. Just read through it carefully.

January 4, 2021 at 6:20 am

Hello there, If one were to find out the correlation between the average grade and a variable, could this coefficient be used? Thanks!

January 4, 2021 at 4:03 pm

If you mean something like an average grade per student and the other variable is something like the number of hours each student studies, yes, that’s fine. You just need to be sure that the average grade applies to one person and that the other variable applies to the same person. You can’t use a class average and then the other variable is for individuals.

December 27, 2020 at 8:27 am

I’m helping a friend working on a paper and don’t have the variables. The question centers around the nature of Criterion Referenced Tests, in general, i.e. correlations of CRT vs. Norm Referenced Tests. As you know, Norm Referenced compares students to each other across a wide population. In this paper, the student is creating a teacher made CRT. It is measuring proficiency of students of more similar abilities and smaller population to criteria and not to each other. I suspect, in general, the CRT doesn’t distinguish as well between students with similar abilities and knowledge. Therefore, the reliability coefficients, in general, are less reliable. How does this effect high or low correlations?

December 26, 2020 at 9:40 pm

high or lower correlation on a CRT proficiency test good or bad?

December 27, 2020 at 1:30 am

Hi Raymond, I’d have to know more about the variables to have an idea about what the correlation means.

December 8, 2020 at 11:02 pm

I have zero statistics experience but I want to spice up a paper that I’m writing with some quants. And so learned the basics about Pearson correlation on SPSS and I plugged in my data. Now, here’s where it gets “interesting.” Two sets of numbers show up: One on the Pearson Correlation row and below that is the Sig. (2-tailed) row.

I’m too embarrassed to ask folks around me (because I should already know this!). So, let me ask you: which of the row of numbers should I use in my analysis about the correlations between two variables? For example, my independent variable correlates with the dependent variable at -.002 on the first (Pearson Correlation) row. But below that is the Sig. (2-tailed) .995. What does that mean? And is it necessary to have both numbers?

I would really appreciate your response … and will acknowledge you (if the paper gets published).

Many thanks from an old-school qualitative researcher struggling in the times of quants! 🙂

December 9, 2020 at 12:32 am

The one you want to use for a measure of association is the Pearson Correlation. The other value is the p-value. The p-value is for a hypothesis test that determines whether your correlation value is significantly different from zero (no correlation).

If we take your -0.002 correlation and it’s p-value (0.995), we’d interpret that as meaning that your sample contains insufficient evidence to conclude that the population correlation is not zero. Given how close the correlation is to zero, that’s not surprising! Zero correlation indicates there is no tendency for one variable to either increase or decrease as the other variable increases. In other words, there is no relationship between them.

November 24, 2020 at 7:55 am

Thank you for the good explanation. I am looking for the source or an article that states that most correlations regarding human behaviour are around .6. What source did you use?

Kind regards, Amy

November 13, 2020 at 5:27 am

This is an informative article and I agree with most of what is said, but this particular sentence might be misleading to readers: “R-squared is a primary measure of how well a regression model fits the data.”. R-squared is in fact based on the assumption that the regression model fits the data to a reasonable extent therefore it cannot also simultaneously be a measure of the goodness of said fit.

The rest of the claims regarding R-squared I completely agree with.

Cheers, Georgi

November 13, 2020 at 2:48 pm

Yes, I make that exact point repeatedly throughout multiple blog posts, particularly my post about R-squared .

Additionally, R-squared is a goodness-of-fit measure, so it is not misleading to say that it measures how well the model fits the data. Yes, it is not a 100% informative measure by itself. You’d also need to assess residual plots in conjunction with the R-squared. Again, that’s a point that I make repeatedly.

I don’t mind disagreements, but I do ask that before disagreeing, you read what I write about a topic to understand what I’m saying. In this case, you would’ve found in my various topics about R-squared and residual plots that we’re saying the same thing.

November 7, 2020 at 12:31 pm

Thank you very much!

November 6, 2020 at 7:34 pm

Hi Jim, I have a question for you – and thank you in advance for responding to it 🙂

Set A has the correlation coefficient of .25 and Set B has the correlation of .9, Which set has the steeper trend line? A or B?

November 6, 2020 at 8:41 pm

Set B has a stronger relationship. However, that’s not quite equivalent to saying it has a steeper trend line. It means the data points fall closer to the line.

If you look at the examples in this post, you’ll notice that all the positive correlations have roughly equal slopes despite having different correlations. Instead, you see the points moving closer to the line as the strength of the relationship increases. The only exception is that a correlation of zero has a slope of zero.

The point being that you can’t tell from the correlation alone which trend line is steeper. However, the relationship in Set B is much stronger than the relationship in Set A.

October 19, 2020 at 6:33 am

Thank you 😊. Now I understand.

October 11, 2020 at 4:49 am

hi, I’m a little confused.

What does it indicating, If there is positive correlation, but negative coefficient from multiple regression outcome? in this situation, how to interpret? the relationship is negative or positive?

October 13, 2020 at 1:32 pm

This is likely a case of omitted variable bias. A pairwise correlation involves just two variables. Multiple regression analysis involves three variables at a minimum (2 IVs and a DV). Correlation doesn’t control for other variables while regression analysis controls for the other variables in the model. That can explain the different relationships. Omitted variable bias occurs under specific conditions. Click the link to read about when it occurs. I include an example where I first look at a pair of variables and then three variables and shows how that changes the results, similar to your example.

September 30, 2020 at 4:26 pm

Hi Jim, I have 4 objective in my research and when I did the correlation between first one and others the result is: ob1 with ob2 is (0.87) – ob1 with ob3 is (0.84) – ob1 with ob4 is ( 0.83). My question is what is that meaning and can I do Correlation Coefficient with all of them in one time.

September 28, 2020 at 4:06 pm

Which best describes the correlation coefficient for r=.08?

September 30, 2020 at 4:29 pm

Hi Jolette,

I’d say that is an extremely weak correlation. I’d want to see its p-value. If it’s not significant, then you can’t conclude that the correlation is different from zero (no correlation). Is there something else particular you want to know about it?

September 15, 2020 at 11:50 am

Correlation result between Vul and FCV

t = 3.4535, df = 306, p-value = 0.0006314 alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval: 0.08373962 0.29897226 sample estimates: cor 0.1936854

What does this mean?

September 17, 2020 at 2:53 am

Hi Lakshmi,

It means that your correlation coefficient is ~0.19. That’s the sample estimate. However, because you’re working with a sample, there’s always sample error and so the population correlation is probably not exactly equal to the sample value. The confidence interval indications that you can be 95% confident that the true population correlation falls between ~0.08 and 0.30. The p-value is less than any common significance level. Consequently, you can reject the null hypothesis that the population correlation equals zero and conclude that it does not equal zero. In other words, the correlation you see in the sample is likely to exist in the population.

A correlation of 0.19 is a fairly weak relationship. However, even though it is weak, you have enough evidence to conclude that it exists in the population.

September 1, 2020 at 8:16 am

Hi Jim Thank you for your support. I have a question that is. Testing criteria for Validity by Pearson correlation, r table determine by formula DF=N-2 – If it is Valid the correlation value less that Pearson correlation value. (Pearson correlation > r table ) – if it is Invalid the correlation value greater that Pearson correlation value. (Pearson correlation < r table ) I got the above information on SPSS tutorial Video about Pearson correlation.

but I didn't get on other literature please can you recommend me some literature that refers about this? or can you clarify more about how to check Validity by Pearson correlation?

August 31, 2020 at 3:21 am

HI JIM i am zia from pakistan i wanna finding correlation of two factoer i have find 144.6 of 66.93 thats is postive relation?

August 31, 2020 at 12:39 pm

Hi Zia, I’m sorry but I’m not clear about what you’re asking. Correlation coefficients range between -1 and +1, so those two values are not correlation coefficients. Are they regression coefficients?

August 16, 2020 at 6:47 am

Warmest greetings.

My name is Norshidah Nordin and I am very grateful if you could provide me some answers to the following questions.

1) Can I used two different set of samples (for e.g. students academic performance (CGPA) as dependent variable and teacher’s self efficacy as dependent variable) to run on a Pearson correlation analysis. If yes, could you elaborate on this aspect.

2) what is the minimum sample size to use in multiple regression analysis.

August 17, 2020 at 9:06 pm

Hi Norshidah,

For correlations, you need to have multiple measurements on the same item or person. In your scenario, it sounds like you’re taking different measurements on different people. Pearson’s correlation would not be appropriate.

The minimum sample size for multiple regression depends on the number of terms you need to include in your model. Read my post about overfitting regression models , which occurs when you have too few observations for the number of model terms.

I hope this helps!

July 29, 2020 at 5:27 pm

Greetings sir, question…. Can you do an accurate regression with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.10? Why or Why not?

July 31, 2020 at 5:33 pm

Hi Monique,

It is possible. First, you should determine whether that correlation is statistically significant. You’re seeing a correlation in your sample, but you want to be confident that is also exists in the large population you’re studying. There’s a possibility that the correlation only exists in your sample by random chance and does not exist in the population–particularly with such a low coefficient. So, check the p-value for the coefficient. If it’s significant, you have reason to proceed with the regression analysis. Additionally, graph your data. Pearson’s only is for linear relationships. Perhaps your coefficient is low because the relationship is curved?

You can fit the regression model to your data. A correlation of 0.10 equates to an R-squared of only 0.01, which is very low. Perhaps adding more independent variables will increase the R-squared. Even if the r-squared stays very low, if your independent variable is significant, you’re still learning something from your regression model. To understand what you can learn in this situation, read my post about regression models with significant variables and a low R-squared values .

So, it is possible to do a valid regression and learn useful information even when the correlation is so low. But, you need to check for significance along the way.

July 8, 2020 at 4:55 am

Hello Jim, first and foremost thank you for giving us a comprehensive information regarding this! This totally help me. But I have a question; my pearson results showing that there’s a moderate positive relationship between my variables which is Parasocial Interaction and the fans’ purchase intention.

But the thing is, if I look at the answer majority of my participants are mostly answering Neutral regarding purchase intention.

What does this means? could you help me to figure out this T.T thanks you in advance! I’m a student currently doing thesis from Malaysia.

July 8, 2020 at 4:00 pm

Hi Titania,

Have you graphed your data using a scatterplot? I’d highly recommend that because I think it will probably clarify what your data are telling you. Also, are both of your variables continuous variables? I’m wonder if purchase intention is ordinal if one of the values is Neutral. If that’s the case, you’d need to use Spearman’s Rank Correlation rather than Pearson’s.

June 18, 2020 at 8:57 am

Hello Jim ! I have a question . I calculated a correlation coefficient between the scale variables and got 0.36, which is relatively weak since it gives a 0.12 if quared. What does the interpretation of correlation concern ? The sample taken or the type of data measurement ? or anything else?

I hope you got my question. Thank you for your help!!

June 18, 2020 at 5:06 pm

I’m not clear what you’re asking exactly. Please clarify. The correlation measures the strength of the relationship between the two continuous variables, as I explain in this article.

Yes, that it is a weak relationship. If you’re going to include this is a regression analysis, you might want to read my article about interpreting low R-squared values .

I’m not sure what you mean by scale variables. However, if these are Likert scale items, you’ll need to use Spearman’s correlation instead of Pearson’s correlation.

May 26, 2020 at 12:08 am

Hi Jim I am very new to statistics and data analysis. I am doing a quantitative study and my sample size is 200 participants. So far I have only obtained 50 complete responses. . Using G*Power a simple linear regression with a medium effect size, an alpha of .05, and a power level of .80 can I do a data analysis with this small sample.

May 26, 2020 at 3:52 am

Please repost your question in the comments section of the appropriate article. It has nothing to do with correlation coefficients. Use the search bar part way down in the right column and search for power. I have a post about power analysis that is a good fit.

May 24, 2020 at 9:02 pm

Thank you Mr.Jim, it was a great answer for me!😉 Take good care~

May 24, 2020 at 9:46 am

I am a student from Malaysia.

I have a question to ask Mr.Jim about how to determine the validity (the accurate figure) of the data for analysis purpose base on the table of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient? Do it has any method?

For example, since the coefficient between one independent variable with the other variable is below 0.7, thus the data valid for analysis purpose.

However, I have read the table there is a figure which more than 0.7. I am not sure about that.

Hope to hearing from Mr.Jim soon. Thank you.

May 24, 2020 at 4:20 pm

Hi, I hope you’re doing well!

There is no single correlation coefficient value that determines whether it is valid to study. It partly depends on your subject area. I low noise physical process might often have a correlation in the very high 0.9s and 0.8 would be considered unacceptable. However, in a study of human behavior, it’s normal and acceptable to have much lower correlations. For example a correlation of 0.5 might be considered very good. Of course, I’m writing the positive values, but the same applies to negative correlations too.

It also depends on what the purpose of your study. If you’re doing something practical, such as describing the relationship between material composition and strength, there might be very specific requirements about how strong that relationship must be for it to be useful. It’s based on real-world practicalities. On the other hand, if you’re just studying something for the sake of science and expanding knowledge, lower correlations might still be interesting.

So, there’s not single answer. It depends on the subject-area you are studying and the purpose of your study.

February 17, 2020 at 3:49 pm

HI Jim, what could be the implication of my result if I obtained a weak relationship between industry experience and instructional effectiveness? thanks in advance

February 20, 2020 at 11:29 am

The best way to think of it is to look at the graphs in this article and compare the higher correlation graphs to the lower correlation graphs. In the higher correlation graphs, if you know the value of one variable, you have a more precise prediction of the value of the other variable. Look along the x-axis and pick a value. In the higher correlation graphs, the range of y-values that correspond to your x-value is narrower. That range is relatively wide for lower correlations.

For your example, I’ll assume there is a positive correlation. As industry experience increases, instructional effectiveness also increases. However, because that relationship is weak, the range of instructional effectiveness for any given value of industry experience is relatively wide.

November 25, 2019 at 9:05 pm

if correlation between X and Y is 0.8 .what is the correlation of -X and -Y

November 26, 2019 at 4:59 pm

If you take all the values of X and multiply them by -1 and do the same for Y, your correlation would still be 0.8.

November 7, 2019 at 3:51 am

This is very helpful, thank you Jim!

November 6, 2019 at 3:16 am

Hi, My data is continuous – the variables are individual shares volatility and oil prices and they were non-normal. I used Kendall’s Tau and did not rank the data or alter it in any way. Can my results be trusted?

November 6, 2019 at 3:32 pm

Hi Lorraine,

Kendall’s Tau is a correlation coefficient for ranked data. Even though you might not have ranked your data, your statistical software must have created the ranks behind the scenes.

Typically, you’ll use Pearson’s correlation when you have continuous data that have a straight line relationship. If your data are ordinal, ranked, or do not have a straight line relationship, using something other than Pearson’s correlation is necessary.

You mention that your data are nonnormal. Technically, you want to graph your data and look at the shape of the relationship rather than assessing the distribution for each variable. Although, nonnormality can make a linear relationship less likely. So, graph your data on a scatterplot and see what it looks like. If it is close to a straight line, you should probably use Pearson’s correlation. If it’s not a straight line relationship, you might need to use something like Kendall’s Tau or Spearman’s rho coefficient, both of which are based on ranked data. While Spearman’s rho is more commonly used, Kendall’s Tau has preferable statistical properties.

October 24, 2019 at 11:56 pm

Hi, Jim. If correlations between continuous variables can be measured using Pearson’s, how is correlation between categorical variables measured? Thank you.

October 25, 2019 at 2:38 pm

There are several possible methods, although unlike with continuous data, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus best approach.

But, first off, if you want to determine whether the relationship between categorical variables is statistically significant, use the chi-square test of independence . This test determines whether the relationship between categorical variables is significant, but it does not tell you the degree of correlation.

For the correlation values themselves, there are different methods, such as Goodman and Kruskal’s lambda, Cramér’s V (or phi) for categorical variables with more than 2 levels, and the Phi coefficient for binary data. There are several others that are available as well. Offhand I don’t know the relative pros and cons of each methodology. Perhaps that would be a good post for the future!

August 29, 2019 at 7:31 pm

Thanks, great explanations.

April 25, 2019 at 11:58 am

In a multi-variable regression model, is there a method for determining where two predictor variables are correlated in their impact on the outcome variable?

If so, then how is this type of scenario determined, and handled?

Thanks, Curt

April 25, 2019 at 1:27 pm

When predictors are correlated, it’s known as multicollinearity. This condition reduces the precision of the coefficient estimates. I’ve written a post about it: Multicollinearity: Detection, Problems, and Solutions . That post should answer all your questions!

February 3, 2019 at 6:45 am

Hi Jim: Great explanations. One quick thing, because the probability distribution is asymptotic, there is no p=.000. The probability can never be zero. I see students reporting that or p<.000 all of the time. The actual number may be p <.00000001, so setting a level of p < .001 is usually the best thing to do and seems like journal editors want that when reporting data. Your thoughts?

February 4, 2019 at 12:25 am

Hi Susan, yes, you’re correct about that. You can’t have a p-value that equals zero. Sometimes software will round down when it’s a very small value. The underlying issue is that no matter how large the difference between your sample value and the null hypothesis value, there is a non-zero probability that you’d obtain the observed results when the null is true.

January 9, 2019 at 6:41 pm

Sir you are love. Such a nice share

November 21, 2018 at 11:17 am

Awesome stuff, really helpful

November 9, 2018 at 11:48 am

What do you do when you can’t perform randomized controlled experiments, like in the cases of social science or societal wide health issues? Apropos to gun violence in America, there appears to be correlation between the availability of guns in a society and the number of gun deaths in a society, where as the number of guns in the society goes up the number of gun deaths go up. This is true of individual states in the US where gun availability differs, and also in countries where gun availability differs. But, when/how can you come to a determination that lowering the number of guns available in a society could reasonably be said to lower the number of gun deaths in that society.

November 9, 2018 at 12:20 pm

Hi Patrick,

It is difficult proving causality using observational studies rather than randomized experiments.

In my mind, the following approach can help when you’re trying to use observational studies to show that A causes B.

In observational study, you need to worry about confounding variables because the study is not randomized. These confounding variables can provide alternative explanations for the effect/correlations. If you can include all confounding variables in the analysis, it makes the case stronger because it helps rule out other causes. You must also show that A precedes B. Further, it helps if you can demonstrate the mechanism by which A causes B. That mechanism requires subject-area knowledge beyond just a statistical test.

Those are some ideas that come to my mind after brief reflection. There might well be more and, of course, there will be variations based on the study-area.

September 19, 2018 at 4:55 am

Thank you so much, I am learning a lot of thing from you!

Please, keep doing this great job!

Best regards

September 19, 2018 at 11:45 pm

You bet, Patrik!

September 18, 2018 at 6:04 am

Another question is: should I consider transform my variable before using person correlation, if they do not follow normal distribution or if the two variable do not have a clear liner relationship? What is the implication of that transformation? How to interpret the relationship if used transformed variable (let“s say log)?

September 18, 2018 at 4:44 pm

Because the data need to follow the bivariate normal distribution to use the hypothesis test, I’d assume the transformation process would be more complex than transforming each variable individually. However, I’m not sure about this.

However, if you just want to make a straight line for the correlation to assess, I’d be careful about that too. The correlation of the transformed data would not apply to the untransformed data. One solution would be to use Spearman’s rank order correlation. Another would be to use regression analysis. In regression analysis, you can fit curves, use transformations, etc., and the assumption is that the residual follow a normal distribution (along with some other assumptions) is easy to check.

If you’re not sure that your data fit the assumptions for Pearson’s correlation, consider using regression instead. There are more tools there for you to use.

September 18, 2018 at 5:36 am

Hi Jim, I am always here following your posts.

I would like if you could clarify something to me, please! What is the assumptions for person correlation that must hold true, in order to apply correlation coefficient?

I have read something on the internet, but there is many confusion. Some people are saying that the dependent variable (if have) must be normally distributed, other saying both (dependent and independent) must be following normal distribution. Therefore, I dont know which one I should follow. I would appreciate a lot your kind contribution. This is something that I am using for my paper.

Thank you in advance!

September 18, 2018 at 4:34 pm

I’m so glad to see that you’re hear reading and learning!

This issue turns out to be a bit complicated!

The assumption is actually that the two variables follow a bivariate normal distribution. I won’t go into that here in much detail, but a bivariate normal distribution is more complex than just each variable following a normal distribution. In a nutshell, if you plot data that follow a bivariate normal distribution on a scatterplot, it’ll appear as an elliptical shape.

In terms of the the correlation coefficient, that simply describes the relationship between the data. It is what it is and the data don’t need to follow a bivariate normal distribution as long as you are assessing a linear relationship.

On the other hand, the hypothesis test of Pearson’s correlation coefficient does assume that the data follow a bivariate normal distribution. If you want to test whether the coefficient equals zero, then you need to satisfy this assumption. However, one thing I’m not sure about is whether the test is robust to departures from normality. For example, a 1-sample t-test assumes normality, but with a large enough sample size you don’t need to satisfy this assumption. I’m not sure if a similar sample size requirement applies to this particular test.

I hope this clarifies this issue a bit!

August 29, 2018 at 8:04 am

Hello, thanks for the good explanation. Do variables have to be normally distributed to be analyzed in a Pearson’s correlation? Thanks, Moritz

August 30, 2018 at 1:41 pm

No, the variables do not need to follow a normal distribution to use Pearson’s correlation. However, you do need to graph the data on a scatterplot to be sure that the relationship between the variables is linear rather than curved. For curved relationships, consider using Spearman’s rank correlation.

June 1, 2018 at 9:08 am

Pearson’s correlation measures only linear relationships. But regression can be performed with nonlinear functions, and the software will calculate a value of R^2. What is the meaning of an R^2 value when it accompanies a nonlinear regression?

June 1, 2018 at 9:49 am

Hi Jerry, you raise an important point. R^2 is actually not a valid measure in nonlinear models. To read about why, read my post about R-squared in nonlinear models . In that post, I write about why it’s problematic that many statistical software packages do calculate R-squared values for nonlinear regression. Instead, you should use a different goodness-of-fit measure, such as the standard error of the regression .

May 30, 2018 at 11:59 pm

Hi, fantastic blog, very helpful. I was hoping I could ask a question? You talk about correlation coefficients but I was wondering if you have a section that talks about the slope of an association? For example, am I right in thinking that the slope is equal to the standardized coefficient from a regression?

I refer to the paper of Cameron et al., (The Aging of Elastic and Muscular Arteries. Diabetes Care 26:2133–2138, 2003) where in table 3 they report a correlation and a slope. Is the correlation the r value and the slope the beta value?

Many thanks, Matt

May 31, 2018 at 12:13 pm

Thanks and I’m glad you found the blog to be helpful!

Typically, you’d use regression analysis to obtain the slope and correlation to obtain the correlation coefficient. These statistics represent fairly different types of information. The correlation coefficient (r) is more closely related to R^2 in simple regression analysis because both statistics measure how close the data points fall to a line. Not surprisingly if you square r, you obtain R^2.

However, you can use r to calculate the slope coefficient. To do that, you’ll need some other information–the standard deviation of the X variable and the standard deviation of the Y variable.

The formula for the slope in simple regression = r(standard deviation of Y/standard deviation of X).

For more information, read my post about slope coefficients and their p-values in regression analysis . I think that will answer a lot of your questions.

April 12, 2018 at 5:19 am

Nice post ! About pitfalls regarding correlation’s interpretation, here’s a funny database:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

And a nice and poetic illustration of the concept of correlation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFjaBh12C6s&t=0s&index=4&list=PLCkLQOAPOtT1xqDNK8m6IC1bgYCxGZJb_

Have a nice day

April 12, 2018 at 1:57 pm

Thanks for sharing those links! It always fun finding strange correlations like that.

The link for spurious correlations illustrates an important point. Many of those funny correlations are for time series data where both variables have a long-term trend. If you have two variables that you measure over time and they both have long term trends, those two variables will have a strong correlation even if there is no real connection between them!

April 3, 2018 at 7:05 pm

“In statistics, you typically need to perform a randomized, controlled experiment to determine that a relationship is causal rather than merely correlation.”

Would you please provide an example where you can reasonably conclude that x causes y? And how do you know there isn’t a z that you didn’t control for?

April 3, 2018 at 11:00 pm

That’s a great question. The trick is that when you perform an experiment, you should randomly assign subjects to treatment and control groups. This process randomly distributes any other characteristics that are related to the outcome variable (y). Suppose there is a z that is correlated to the outcome. That z gets randomly distributed between the treatment and control groups. The end result is that z should exist in all groups in roughly equal amounts. This equal distribution should occur even if you don’t know what z is. And, that’s the beautiful thing about random assignment. You don’t need to know everything that can affect the outcome, but random assignment still takes care of it all.

Consequently, if there is a relationship between a treatment and the outcome, you can be pretty certain that the treatment causes the changes in the outcome because all other correlation-only relationships should’ve been randomized away.

I’ll be writing about random assignment in the near future. And, I’ve written about the effectiveness of flu shots , which is based on randomized controlled trials.

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

• Calculators
• Descriptive Statistics
• Merchandise
• Which Statistics Test?

How to Report Pearson's r (Pearson's Correlation Coefficient) in APA Style

The APA has precise requirements for reporting the results of statistical tests, which means as well as getting the basic format right, you need to pay attention to the placing of brackets, punctuation, italics, and so on.

Happily, the basic format for citing Pearson's r is not too complex, as you can see here (the color red means you substitute in the appropriate value from your study).

r ( degress of freedom ) = the r statistic , p = p value .

Imagine we have conducted a study of 40 students that looked at whether IQ scores and GPA are correlated. We might report the results like this:

IQ and GPA were found to be moderately positively correlated, r (38) = .34, p = .032.

Other Examples

The variables shoe size and height were found to be strongly correlated, r (128) = .89, p < .01.

Among the students of Hogwarts University, the number of hours playing Fortnite per week and midterm exam results were negatively correlated, r (78) = -.45, p < .001.

Here are some things you should watch out for.

1. There are two ways to report p values. The first way is to cite the alpha value as in the second example above. The second way, very much the preferred way in the age of computer aided calculations (and the way recommended by the APA), is to report the exact p value (as in our main example). If you report the exact p value, then you need to state your alpha level early in your results section. The other thing to note here is that if your p value is less than .001, it's conventional simply to state p < .001, rather than give the exact value.

2. The r statistic should be stated at 2 decimal places.

3. Remember to drop the leading 0 from both r and the p value (i.e., not 0.34, but rather .34).

4. You don't need to provide the formula for r .

5. Degrees of freedom for r is N - 2 (the number of data points minus 2).

Transcription Service for Your Academic Paper

Start Transcription now

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Transcription Service for Your Paper

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Pearson Correlation Coefficient – Guide & Examples

How do you like this article cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The best and most common method for measuring a linear correlation is calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient. This approach in statistics provides a significant formula in the field of experimental research. This article will account for the various types, how to calculate them, and the significant test. Furthermore, this guide will provide an in-depth understanding of using this method and give respective examples for visualization and clarity.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Pearson Correlation Coefficient – In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Pearson correlation coefficient
• 3 Types of Pearson correlation coefficients
• 4 Visualizing the Pearson correlation coefficient
• 5 Calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient
• 6 Pearson correlation coefficient: Significance test
• 7 Pearson correlation coefficient in a thesis

Pearson Correlation Coefficient – In a Nutshell

• The Pearson correlation coefficient is an expressive statistic that measures the strength between diverse variables and how they relate.
• In simpler terms, the Pearson correlation coefficient recaps the features of a dataset.
• This article gives insight into the various types of Pearson correlation coefficients
• It also outlines the steps of how to calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Definition: Pearson correlation coefficient

The Pearson correlation coefficient is an expressive statistic that measures the strength between diverse variables and how they relate. In simpler terms, it recaps the features of a dataset. The Pearson correlation coefficient is also known as:

• Bivariate correlation
• The correlation coefficient
• Pearson’s r
• (PPMCC) Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

Its formula is as follows:

Types of Pearson correlation coefficients

The Pearson correlation coefficient is a digit between -1 and 1 that calculates the strength and course of the affiliation between two variables. The table below provides a vivid explanation.

Positive correlation

Negative correlation

No correlation

The effect size (relationship strength) interpretation may vary depending on the discipline. However, the following standard rules still apply.

Besides descriptive statistics , the Pearson correlation coefficient can also be used for testing statistical hypotheses because it is an inferential statistic .

Visualizing the Pearson correlation coefficient

You can visualize Pearson’s r as a measure of how close the observations in experimental research are to a line of best fit. Also, it tells you whether the slope of the line of best fit is positive or negative.

The line of best fit is when r is 1 or -1 .

Pearson correlation coefficient vs. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients

Besides the Pearson correlation coefficient, another popular correlation coefficient is Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient .

It is a go-to method when at least one of the following characteristics is true:

• The variables are ordinal
• The variables are not distributed normally
• The data features outliers
• The variables have a non-linear or monotone relationship

Calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient

While the formula is easy to use, you can apply software tools like R or Excel to help you calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient.

You are researching the relationship between the weight and length of newborn babies and have data from 10 babies born within the last four weeks at a local clinic. After translating the imperial dimensions to metrics, you enter the data in this table:

Step 1: Calculating the sums of x and y

Step 2: Calculating x 2 and y 2 and the respective sums

Calculations:

Step 3: Calculating the cross product and its sum

Finally, create a column with the products of x and y and name it the cross product. Then, calculate the sum of the new column.

Step 4: Calculating Pearson correlation coefficient r

Use the formula above and the figures for each section to calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Insert the results into the formula of r:

Pearson correlation coefficient: Significance test

You can use the Pearson correlation coefficient to test if the relationship between two variables is significant.

For instance, if the Pearson correlation coefficient of the sample is r, then it is an estimate of rho, which is the correlation of the population. Therefore, determining the r and n (sample size) can help deduce if the rho is meaningfully different from 0.

You can use tools like the R or Strata software to test the hypothesis. Alternatively, you can follow these three steps:

Step 1: Calculating the t value

Calculating the t value is as easy as the following formula:

Therefore, using the formula above,

Step 2: Finding the critical value of t

You can find the t in a table that will need the following facts:

• Significance level α: Which is usually 0.05
• One-tailed or two-tailed : Two-tailed is the right option for correlations

Step 3: Comparing the t value to the critical value

Then, determine if the absolute t value is greater than the critical value. Note that “absolute” implies that you should disregard the minus sign if the t value is negative.

Step 4: Deciding whether to reject the null hypothesis

Pearson correlation coefficient in a thesis

The Pearson correlation coefficient usually comes up in the results section of an academic paper or thesis. Apply the rules below if you want to report in APA style:

• No need for a reference
• Italicize r
• Include a leading zero before the decimal point
• Provide two significant digits after the decimal point

Printing Your Thesis With BachelorPrint

• High-quality bindings with customizable embossing
• 3D live preview to check your work before ordering
• Free express delivery

Configure your binding now!

to the print shop

How is the Pearson correlation coefficient in R calculated?

It is calculated using the formula below:

When should you use the Pearson correlation coefficient?

You should use this method in inferential statistics or quantitative statistics . You can also use it to test correlations between two variants.

What are the advantages of using the Pearson correlation coefficient?

It helps test the relationship between two variants. It also helps determine the course of change if either variant is altered.

What are the downsides of using the Pearson correlation coefficient?

It isn’t easy to calculate. However, if you master the formula, you should be okay.

Bachelor Print is the most amazing company ever to print or bind academic work...

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

Hypothesis Testing with Pearson's r (Jump to: Lecture | Video )

Just like with other tests such as the z-test or ANOVA, we can conduct hypothesis testing using Pearson�s r.

To test if age and income are related, researchers collected the ages and yearly incomes of 10 individuals, shown below. Using alpha = 0.05, are they related?

1. Define Null and Alternative Hypotheses

2. State Alpha

alpha = 0.05

3. Calculate Degrees of Freedom

Where n is the number of subjects you have:

df = n - 2 = 10 � 2 = 8

4. State Decision Rule

Using our alpha level and degrees of freedom, we look up a critical value in the r-Table . We find a critical r of 0.632.

If r is greater than 0.632, reject the null hypothesis.

5. Calculate Test Statistic

We calculate r using the same method as we did in the previous lecture:

6. State Results

Reject the null hypothesis.

7. State Conclusion

There is a relationship between age and yearly income, r(8) = 0.99, p < 0.05

Back to Top

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Pearson correlation coefficient: Definition, formula & calculation, and examples

It is usual practice to quantify linear relationships through the Pearson correlation coefficient. To Indicate the strength and direction of the connection between two variables, it takes on a value between -1 and 1.

It can help investors diversify. Calculations from scatter plots of historical returns between pairs of assets, such as equities-bonds, equities-commodities, bonds-real estate, etc., will produce to help investors build risk-return portfolios.

Therefore, we will learn about the Pearson correlation coefficient and know how to measure the relationship between two related variables using it.

Content Index

What is the Pearson correlation coefficient?

What does the pearson correlation coefficient test do, pearson correlation coefficient formula and calculation, determining the strength of the pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, examples of pearson correlation coefficient.

Pearson correlation coefficient or Pearson’s correlation coefficient or Pearson’s r is defined in statistics as the measurement of the strength of the relationship between two variables and their association with each other. 

In simple words, Pearson’s correlation coefficient calculates the effect of change in one variable when the other variable changes.

For example: Up till a certain age (in most cases), a child’s height will keep increasing as his/her age increases. Of course, his/her growth depends upon various factors like genes, location, diet, lifestyle, etc.

This approach is based on covariance and, thus, is the best method to measure the relationship between two variables.

The Pearson coefficient correlation has a high statistical significance. It looks at the relationship between two variables. It seeks to draw a line through the data of two variables to show their relationship. The relationship of the variables is measured with the help Pearson correlation coefficient calculator. This linear relationship can be positive or negative.

For example: 

• Positive linear relationship: In most cases, universally, the income of a person increases as his/her age increases.
• Negative linear relationship: If the vehicle increases its speed, the time taken to travel decreases, and vice versa.

From the example above, it is evident that the Pearson correlation coefficient, r, tries to find out two things – the strength and the direction of the relationship from the given sample sizes.

Create a free account

The correlation coefficient formula finds out the relation between the variables. It returns the values between -1 and 1. Use the below Pearson coefficient correlation calculator to measure the strength of two variables.

Pearson correlation coefficient formula:

Where: N = the number of pairs of scores Σxy = the sum of the products of paired scores Σx = the sum of x scores Σy = the sum of y scores Σ x 2 = the sum of squared x scores Σy 2 = the sum of squared y scores

Calculation

Here is a step-by-step guide to calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficient:

Step one: Create a correlation coefficient table. Make a data chart, including both variables. Label these variables ‘x’ and ‘y.’ Add three additional columns – (xy), (x^2), and (y^2). Refer to this simple data chart.

Step two: Use basic multiplication to complete the table.

Step three: Add up all the columns from bottom to top.

Step four: Use the correlation formula to plug in the values.

If the result is negative, there is a negative correlation relationship between the two variables. If the result is positive, there is a positive correlation relationship between the variables. Results can also define the strength of a linear relationship i.e., strong positive relationship, strong negative relationship, medium positive relationship, and so on.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, or simply the Pearson correlation coefficient or the Pearson coefficient correlation r, determines the strength of the linear relationship between two variables.

The stronger the association between the two variables, the closer your answer will incline toward 1 or -1. Attaining values of 1 or -1 signify that all the data points are plotted on the straight line of ‘best fit.’ It means that the change in factors of any variable does not weaken the correlation with the other variable. The closer your answer lies near 0, the more variation in the variables.

How to interpret the Pearson correlation coefficient

On a graph, one can notice the relationship between the variables and make assumptions before even calculating them. The scatterplots, if close to the line, show a strong relationship between the variables.

The closer the scatterplots lie next to the line, the stronger the relationship between the variables. The further they move from the line, the weaker the relationship gets. If the line is nearly parallel to the x-axis due to the scatterplots randomly placed on the graph, it’s safe to assume that there is no correlation between the two variables.

What do the terms strength and direction mean?

The terms ‘strength’ and ‘direction’ have statistical significance. Here’s a straightforward explanation of the two words:

• Strength: Strength signifies the relationship correlation between two variables. It means how consistently one variable will change due to the change in the other. Values that are close to +1 or -1 indicate a strong relationship. These values are attained if the data points fall on or are very close to the line. The further the data points move away, the weaker the strength of the linear relationship. When there is no practical way to draw a straight line because the data points are scattered, the strength of the linear relationship is the weakest.
• Direction: The direction of the line indicates a positive linear or negative linear relationship between variables. If the line has an upward slope, the variables have a positive relationship. This means an increase in the value of one variable will lead to an increase in the value of the other variable. A negative correlation depicts a downward slope. This means an increase in the amount of one variable leads to a decrease in the value of another variable.

Let’s look at some visual examples to help you interpret the correlation coefficient table:

Large positive correlation

• The above figure depicts a correlation of almost +1.
• The scatterplots are nearly plotted in a straight line.
• The slope is positive, which means that if one variable increases, the other variable also increases, showing a positive linear line.
• This denotes that a change in one variable is directly proportional to the change in the other variable.
• An example of a large positive correlation would be – As children grow, so do their clothes and shoe sizes.

Medium positive correlation

• The figure above depicts a positive correlation.
• The correlation is above +0.8 but below 1+.
• It shows a pretty strong linear uphill pattern.
• An example of a medium positive correlation would be – As the number of automobiles increases, so makes the demand for the fuel variable increases.

Small negative correlation

• In the figure above, the scatter plots are not as close to the straight line compared to the earlier examples
• It shows a negative linear correlation of approximately -0.5
• The change in one variable is inversely proportional to the change in the other variable, as the slope is negative.
• An example of a small negative correlation would be – The more somebody eats, the less hungry they get.

Weak / no correlation

• The scatterplots are far away from the line.
• It is tough to draw a line practically.
• The correlation is approximately +0.15
• It can’t be judged that the change in one variable is directly proportional or inversely proportional to the other variable.
• An example of a weak/no correlation would be – An increase in fuel prices leads to lesser people adopting pets.

The Pearson correlation coefficient can be determined by collecting data on two variables of interest through a survey. You can use this to learn whether the correlation between the two variables is positive or negative and how strong it is.

QuestionPro Research Suite is a suite of tools to leverage research and transform insights that can be used to collect data for Pearson correlation coefficient analysis. After exporting survey data from QuestionPro and importing it into a spreadsheet or statistical application, you can conduct the correlation analysis.

QuestionPro offers helpful data analysis tools such as cross-tabulation, data visualization, and statistical testing, in addition to calculating the correlation coefficient. These qualities can assist in your research and understanding your variables’ interrelationships.

Ready to discover the relationship between your variables and advance your data analysis? Start a QuestionPro free trial today to see how our survey software can help you to determine the Pearson correlation coefficient easily. Don’t miss this chance to improve data analysis and research.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Closed-Loop Management: The Key to Customer Centricity

Sep 3, 2024

Net Trust Score: Tool for Measuring Trust in Organization

Sep 2, 2024

Why You Should Attend XDAY 2024

Aug 30, 2024

Alchemer vs Qualtrics: Find out which one you should choose

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• Flashes Safe Seven
• FlashLine Login
• Faculty & Staff Phone Directory
• Emeriti or Retiree
• All Departments
• Maps & Directions

• Building Guide
• Departments
• Directions & Parking
• Faculty & Staff
• Give to University Libraries
• Library Instructional Spaces
• Mission & Vision
• Newsletters
• Circulation
• Course Reserves / Core Textbooks
• Equipment for Checkout
• Interlibrary Loan
• Library Instruction
• Library Tutorials
• My Library Account
• Open Access Kent State
• Research Support Services
• Statistical Consulting
• Student Multimedia Studio
• Citation Tools
• Databases A-to-Z
• Databases By Subject
• Digital Collections
• Discovery@Kent State
• Government Information
• Journal Finder
• Library Guides
• Connect from Off-Campus
• Library Workshops
• Subject Librarians Directory
• Suggestions/Feedback
• Writing Commons
• Academic Integrity
• Jobs for Students
• International Students
• Meet with a Librarian
• Study Spaces
• University Libraries Student Scholarship
• Affordable Course Materials
• Copyright Services
• Selection Manager
• Suggest a Purchase

Library Locations at the Kent Campus

• Architecture Library
• Fashion Library
• Map Library
• Performing Arts Library
• Special Collections and Archives

Regional Campus Libraries

• East Liverpool
• College of Podiatric Medicine

• Kent State University
• SPSS Tutorials

Pearson Correlation

Spss tutorials: pearson correlation.

• The SPSS Environment
• The Data View Window
• Using SPSS Syntax
• Data Creation in SPSS
• Importing Data into SPSS
• Variable Types
• Date-Time Variables in SPSS
• Defining Variables
• Creating a Codebook
• Computing Variables
• Computing Variables: Mean Centering
• Computing Variables: Recoding Categorical Variables
• Computing Variables: Recoding String Variables into Coded Categories (Automatic Recode)
• rank transform converts a set of data values by ordering them from smallest to largest, and then assigning a rank to each value. In SPSS, the Rank Cases procedure can be used to compute the rank transform of a variable." href="https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/RankCases" style="" >Computing Variables: Rank Transforms (Rank Cases)
• Weighting Cases
• Sorting Data
• Grouping Data
• Descriptive Stats for One Numeric Variable (Explore)
• Descriptive Stats for One Numeric Variable (Frequencies)
• Descriptive Stats for Many Numeric Variables (Descriptives)
• Descriptive Stats by Group (Compare Means)
• Frequency Tables
• Working with "Check All That Apply" Survey Data (Multiple Response Sets)
• Chi-Square Test of Independence
• One Sample t Test
• Paired Samples t Test
• Independent Samples t Test
• One-Way ANOVA
• How to Cite the Tutorials

Sample Data Files

Our tutorials reference a dataset called "sample" in many examples. If you'd like to download the sample dataset to work through the examples, choose one of the files below:

• Data definitions (*.pdf)
• Data - Comma delimited (*.csv)
• Data - Tab delimited (*.txt)
• Data - Excel format (*.xlsx)
• Data - SAS format (*.sas7bdat)
• Data - SPSS format (*.sav)
• SPSS Syntax (*.sps) Syntax to add variable labels, value labels, set variable types, and compute several recoded variables used in later tutorials.
• SAS Syntax (*.sas) Syntax to read the CSV-format sample data and set variable labels and formats/value labels.

The bivariate Pearson Correlation produces a sample correlation coefficient, r , which measures the strength and direction of linear relationships between pairs of continuous variables. By extension, the Pearson Correlation evaluates whether there is statistical evidence for a linear relationship among the same pairs of variables in the population, represented by a population correlation coefficient, ρ (“rho”). The Pearson Correlation is a parametric measure.

This measure is also known as:

• Pearson’s correlation
• Pearson product-moment correlation (PPMC)

Common Uses

The bivariate Pearson Correlation is commonly used to measure the following:

• Correlations among pairs of variables
• Correlations within and between sets of variables

The bivariate Pearson correlation indicates the following:

• Whether a statistically significant linear relationship exists between two continuous variables
• The strength of a linear relationship (i.e., how close the relationship is to being a perfectly straight line)
• The direction of a linear relationship (increasing or decreasing)

Note: The bivariate Pearson Correlation cannot address non-linear relationships or relationships among categorical variables. If you wish to understand relationships that involve categorical variables and/or non-linear relationships, you will need to choose another measure of association.

Note: The bivariate Pearson Correlation only reveals associations among continuous variables. The bivariate Pearson Correlation does not provide any inferences about causation, no matter how large the correlation coefficient is.

Data Requirements

To use Pearson correlation, your data must meet the following requirements:

• Two or more continuous variables (i.e., interval or ratio level)
• Cases must have non-missing values on both variables
• Linear relationship between the variables
• the values for all variables across cases are unrelated
• for any case, the value for any variable cannot influence the value of any variable for other cases
• no case can influence another case on any variable
• The biviariate Pearson correlation coefficient and corresponding significance test are not robust when independence is violated.
• Each pair of variables is bivariately normally distributed
• Each pair of variables is bivariately normally distributed at all levels of the other variable(s)
• This assumption ensures that the variables are linearly related; violations of this assumption may indicate that non-linear relationships among variables exist. Linearity can be assessed visually using a scatterplot of the data.
• Random sample of data from the population
• No outliers

The null hypothesis ( H 0 ) and alternative hypothesis ( H 1 ) of the significance test for correlation can be expressed in the following ways, depending on whether a one-tailed or two-tailed test is requested:

Two-tailed significance test:

H 0 : ρ  = 0 ("the population correlation coefficient is 0; there is no association") H 1 : ρ ≠ 0 ("the population correlation coefficient is not 0; a nonzero correlation could exist")

One-tailed significance test:

H 0 : ρ  = 0 ("the population correlation coefficient is 0; there is no association") H 1 : ρ   > 0 ("the population correlation coefficient is greater than 0; a positive correlation could exist")      OR H 1 : ρ   < 0 ("the population correlation coefficient is less than 0; a negative correlation could exist")

where ρ is the population correlation coefficient.

Test Statistic

The sample correlation coefficient between two variables x and y is denoted r or r xy , and can be computed as: $$ r_{xy} = \frac{\mathrm{cov}(x,y)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{var}(x)} \dot{} \sqrt{\mathrm{var}(y)}} $$

where cov( x , y ) is the sample covariance of x and y ; var( x ) is the sample variance of x ; and var( y ) is the sample variance of y .

Correlation can take on any value in the range [-1, 1]. The sign of the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship, while the magnitude of the correlation (how close it is to -1 or +1) indicates the strength of the relationship.

•  -1 : perfectly negative linear relationship
•   0 : no relationship
• +1  : perfectly positive linear relationship

The strength can be assessed by these general guidelines [1] (which may vary by discipline):

• .1 < | r | < .3 … small / weak correlation
• .3 < | r | < .5 … medium / moderate correlation
• .5 < | r | ……… large / strong correlation

Note: The direction and strength of a correlation are two distinct properties. The scatterplots below [2] show correlations that are r = +0.90, r = 0.00, and r = -0.90, respectively. The strength of the nonzero correlations are the same: 0.90. But the direction of the correlations is different: a negative correlation corresponds to a decreasing relationship, while and a positive correlation corresponds to an increasing relationship. 

Note that the r = 0.00 correlation has no discernable increasing or decreasing linear pattern in this particular graph. However, keep in mind that Pearson correlation is only capable of detecting linear associations, so it is possible to have a pair of variables with a strong nonlinear relationship and a small Pearson correlation coefficient. It is good practice to create scatterplots of your variables to corroborate your correlation coefficients.

[1]  Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[2]  Scatterplots created in R using ggplot2 , ggthemes::theme_tufte() , and MASS::mvrnorm() .

Data Set-Up

Your dataset should include two or more continuous numeric variables, each defined as scale, which will be used in the analysis.

Each row in the dataset should represent one unique subject, person, or unit. All of the measurements taken on that person or unit should appear in that row. If measurements for one subject appear on multiple rows -- for example, if you have measurements from different time points on separate rows -- you should reshape your data to "wide" format before you compute the correlations.

Run a Bivariate Pearson Correlation

To run a bivariate Pearson Correlation in SPSS, click  Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate .

The Bivariate Correlations window opens, where you will specify the variables to be used in the analysis. All of the variables in your dataset appear in the list on the left side. To select variables for the analysis, select the variables in the list on the left and click the blue arrow button to move them to the right, in the Variables field.

A Variables : The variables to be used in the bivariate Pearson Correlation. You must select at least two continuous variables, but may select more than two. The test will produce correlation coefficients for each pair of variables in this list.

B Correlation Coefficients: There are multiple types of correlation coefficients. By default, Pearson is selected. Selecting Pearson will produce the test statistics for a bivariate Pearson Correlation.

C Test of Significance:  Click Two-tailed or One-tailed , depending on your desired significance test. SPSS uses a two-tailed test by default.

D Flag significant correlations: Checking this option will include asterisks (**) next to statistically significant correlations in the output. By default, SPSS marks statistical significance at the alpha = 0.05 and alpha = 0.01 levels, but not at the alpha = 0.001 level (which is treated as alpha = 0.01)

E Options : Clicking Options will open a window where you can specify which Statistics to include (i.e., Means and standard deviations , Cross-product deviations and covariances ) and how to address Missing Values (i.e., Exclude cases pairwise or Exclude cases listwise ). Note that the pairwise/listwise setting does not affect your computations if you are only entering two variable, but can make a very large difference if you are entering three or more variables into the correlation procedure.

Example: Understanding the linear association between weight and height

Problem statement.

Perhaps you would like to test whether there is a statistically significant linear relationship between two continuous variables, weight and height (and by extension, infer whether the association is significant in the population). You can use a bivariate Pearson Correlation to test whether there is a statistically significant linear relationship between height and weight, and to determine the strength and direction of the association.

Before the Test

In the sample data, we will use two variables: “Height” and “Weight.” The variable “Height” is a continuous measure of height in inches and exhibits a range of values from 55.00 to 84.41 ( Analyze > Descriptive Statistics > Descriptives ). The variable “Weight” is a continuous measure of weight in pounds and exhibits a range of values from 101.71 to 350.07.

Before we look at the Pearson correlations, we should look at the scatterplots of our variables to get an idea of what to expect. In particular, we need to determine if it's reasonable to assume that our variables have linear relationships. Click Graphs > Legacy Dialogs > Scatter/Dot . In the Scatter/Dot window, click Simple Scatter , then click Define . Move variable Height to the X Axis box, and move variable Weight to the Y Axis box. When finished, click OK .

To add a linear fit like the one depicted, double-click on the plot in the Output Viewer to open the Chart Editor. Click Elements > Fit Line at Total . In the Properties window, make sure the Fit Method is set to Linear , then click Apply . (Notice that adding the linear regression trend line will also add the R-squared value in the margin of the plot. If we take the square root of this number, it should match the value of the Pearson correlation we obtain.)

From the scatterplot, we can see that as height increases, weight also tends to increase. There does appear to be some linear relationship.

Running the Test

To run the bivariate Pearson Correlation, click  Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate . Select the variables Height and Weight and move them to the Variables box. In the Correlation Coefficients area, select Pearson . In the Test of Significance area, select your desired significance test, two-tailed or one-tailed. We will select a two-tailed significance test in this example. Check the box next to Flag significant correlations .

Click OK to run the bivariate Pearson Correlation. Output for the analysis will display in the Output Viewer.

The results will display the correlations in a table, labeled Correlations .

A Correlation of Height with itself (r=1), and the number of nonmissing observations for height (n=408).

B Correlation of height and weight (r=0.513), based on n=354 observations with pairwise nonmissing values.

C Correlation of height and weight (r=0.513), based on n=354 observations with pairwise nonmissing values.

D Correlation of weight with itself (r=1), and the number of nonmissing observations for weight (n=376).

The important cells we want to look at are either B or C. (Cells B and C are identical, because they include information about the same pair of variables.) Cells B and C contain the correlation coefficient for the correlation between height and weight, its p-value, and the number of complete pairwise observations that the calculation was based on.

The correlations in the main diagonal (cells A and D) are all equal to 1. This is because a variable is always perfectly correlated with itself. Notice, however, that the sample sizes are different in cell A ( n =408) versus cell D ( n =376). This is because of missing data -- there are more missing observations for variable Weight than there are for variable Height.

If you have opted to flag significant correlations, SPSS will mark a 0.05 significance level with one asterisk (*) and a 0.01 significance level with two asterisks (0.01). In cell B (repeated in cell C), we can see that the Pearson correlation coefficient for height and weight is .513, which is significant ( p < .001 for a two-tailed test), based on 354 complete observations (i.e., cases with nonmissing values for both height and weight).

Decision and Conclusions

Based on the results, we can state the following:

• Weight and height have a statistically significant linear relationship ( r =.513, p < .001).
• The direction of the relationship is positive (i.e., height and weight are positively correlated), meaning that these variables tend to increase together (i.e., greater height is associated with greater weight).
• The magnitude, or strength, of the association is approximately moderate (.3 < | r | < .5).
• << Previous: Chi-Square Test of Independence
• Next: One Sample t Test >>
• Last Updated: Jul 10, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS

Street Address

Mailing address, quick links.

• How Are We Doing?
• Student Jobs

Information

• Accessibility
• Emergency Information
• For Our Alumni
• For the Media
• Jobs & Employment
• Life at KSU
• Privacy Statement
• Technology Support
• Website Feedback