Pearson Product-moment Correlation Coefficient

In statistics, the **Pearson correlation coefficient** (**PCC**, pronounced ), also referred to as **Pearson's r**, the

Pearson's correlation coefficient is the covariance of the two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations. The form of the definition involves a "product moment", that is, the mean (the first moment about the origin) of the product of the mean-adjusted random variables; hence the modifier *product-moment* in the name.

Pearson's correlation coefficient when applied to a population is commonly represented by the Greek letter *?* (rho) and may be referred to as the *population correlation coefficient* or the *population Pearson correlation coefficient*. The formula for *?*^{[5]} is:

- where:
- is the covariance
- is the standard deviation of
- is the standard deviation of

- where:

The formula for *?* can be expressed in terms of mean and expectation. Since

^{[5]}

the formula for *?* can also be written as

- where:
- and are defined as above
- is the mean of
- is the mean of
- is the expectation.

- where:

The formula for *?* can be expressed in terms of uncentered moments. Since

the formula for *?* can also be written as

Pearson's correlation coefficient when applied to a sample is commonly represented by the letter *r* and may be referred to as the *sample correlation coefficient* or the *sample Pearson correlation coefficient*. We can obtain a formula for *r* by substituting estimates of the covariances and variances based on a sample into the formula above. So if we have one dataset {*x*_{1},...,*x*_{n}} containing *n* values and another dataset {*y*_{1},...,*y*_{n}} containing *n* values then that formula for *r* is:

- where:

- is the sample size
- are the individual sample points indexed with
*i* - (the sample mean); and analogously for

Rearranging gives us this formula for *r*:

- where:

- are defined as above
- This formula suggests a convenient single-pass algorithm for calculating sample correlations, but, depending on the numbers involved, it can sometimes be numerically unstable.

Rearranging again gives us this^{[5]} formula for *r*:

- where:

- are defined as above

An equivalent expression gives the formula for *r* as the mean of the products of the standard scores as follows:

- where

- are defined as above, and are defined below
- is the standard score (and analogously for the standard score of
*y*)

Alternative formulae for *r* are also available. One can use the following formula for *r*:

- where:

- are defined as above and:
- (the sample standard deviation); and analogously for
*s*_{y}

- Practical issues

Under heavy noise conditions, extracting the correlation coefficient between two sets of stochastic variables is nontrivial, in particular where Canonical Correlation Analysis reports degraded correlation values due to the heavy noise contributions. A generalization of the approach is given elsewhere.^{[6]}

In case of missing data, Garren derived the maximum likelihood estimator.^{[7]}

The absolute values of both the sample and population Pearson correlation coefficients are less than or equal to 1. Correlations equal to 1 or -1 correspond to data points lying exactly on a line (in the case of the sample correlation), or to a bivariate distribution entirely supported on a line (in the case of the population correlation). The Pearson correlation coefficient is symmetric: corr(*X*,*Y*) = corr(*Y*,*X*).

A key mathematical property of the Pearson correlation coefficient is that it is invariant under separate changes in location and scale in the two variables. That is, we may transform *X* to *a* + *bX* and transform *Y* to *c* + *dY*, where *a*, *b*, *c*, and *d* are constants with , without changing the correlation coefficient. (This holds for both the population and sample Pearson correlation coefficients.) Note that more general linear transformations do change the correlation: see § Decorrelation of n random variables for an application of this.

The correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1. A value of 1 implies that a linear equation describes the relationship between *X* and *Y* perfectly, with all data points lying on a line for which *Y* increases as *X* increases. A value of -1 implies that all data points lie on a line for which *Y* decreases as *X* increases. A value of 0 implies that there is no linear correlation between the variables.

More generally, note that (*X*_{i} - *X*)(*Y*_{i} - *Y*) is positive if and only if *X*_{i} and *Y*_{i} lie on the same side of their respective means. Thus the correlation coefficient is positive if *X*_{i} and *Y*_{i} tend to be simultaneously greater than, or simultaneously less than, their respective means. The correlation coefficient is negative (anti-correlation) if *X*_{i} and *Y*_{i} tend to lie on opposite sides of their respective means. Moreover, the stronger is either tendency, the larger is the absolute value of the correlation coefficient.

Rogers and Nicewander
^{[8]}
cataloged thirteen ways of interpreting correlation:

- Function of raw scores and means
- Standardized covariance
- Standardized slope of the regression line
- Geometric mean of the two regression slopes
- Square root of the ratio of two variances
- Mean cross-product of standardized variables
- Function of the angle between two standardized regression lines
- Function of the angle between two variable vectors
- Rescaled variance of the difference between standardized scores
- Estimated from the balloon rule
- Related to the bivariate ellipses of isoconcentration
- Function of test statistics from designed experiments
- Ratio of two means

For uncentered data, there is a relation between the correlation coefficient and the angle *φ* between the two regression lines, and , obtained by regressing *y* on *x* and *x* on *y* respectively. (Here *φ* is measured counterclockwise within the first quadrant formed around the lines' intersection point if , or counterclockwise from the fourth to the second quadrant if .) One can show^{[9]} that if the standard deviations are equal, then , where sec and tan are trigonometric functions.

For centered data (i.e., data which have been shifted by the sample means of their respective variables so as to have an average of zero for each variable), the correlation coefficient can also be viewed as the cosine of the angle *θ* between the two observed vectors in *N*-dimensional space (for *N* observations of each variable)^{[10]}^{:ch. 5} (as illustrated for a special case in the next paragraph).

Both the uncentered (non-Pearson-compliant) and centered correlation coefficients can be determined for a dataset. As an example, suppose five countries are found to have gross national products of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 billion dollars, respectively. Suppose these same five countries (in the same order) are found to have 11%, 12%, 13%, 15%, and 18% poverty. Then let **x** and **y** be ordered 5-element vectors containing the above data: and .

By the usual procedure for finding the angle *θ* between two vectors (see dot product), the *uncentered* correlation coefficient is:

This uncentred correlation coefficient is identical with the cosine similarity.
Note that the above data were deliberately chosen to be perfectly correlated: . The Pearson correlation coefficient must therefore be exactly one. Centering the data (shifting **x** by and **y** by ) yields and , from which

as expected.

Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient.^{[11]}^{[12]} However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary.^{[12]} The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.8 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors.

Statistical inference based on Pearson's correlation coefficient often focuses on one of the following two aims:

- One aim is to test the null hypothesis that the true correlation coefficient
*?*is equal to 0, based on the value of the sample correlation coefficient*r*. - The other aim is to derive a confidence interval that, on repeated sampling, has a given probability of containing
*?*.

We discuss methods of achieving one or both of these aims below.

Permutation tests provide a direct approach to performing hypothesis tests and constructing confidence intervals. A permutation test for Pearson's correlation coefficient involves the following two steps:

- Using the original paired data (
*x*_{i},*y*_{i}), randomly redefine the pairs to create a new data set (*x*_{i},*y*_{i′}), where the*i′*are a permutation of the set {1,...,*n*}. The permutation*i′*is selected randomly, with equal probabilities placed on all*n*! possible permutations. This is equivalent to drawing the*i′*randomly "**without replacement**" from the set {1, ...,*n*}. A closely related and equally justified (bootstrapping) approach is to separately draw the*i*and the*i′*"**with replacement**" from {1, ...,*n*}; - Construct a correlation coefficient
*r*from the randomized data.

To perform the permutation test, repeat steps (1) and (2) a large number of times. The p-value for the permutation test is the proportion of the *r* values generated in step (2) that are larger than the Pearson correlation coefficient that was calculated from the original data. Here "larger" can mean either that the value is larger in magnitude, or larger in signed value, depending on whether a two-sided or one-sided test is desired.

The bootstrap can be used to construct confidence intervals for Pearson's correlation coefficient. In the "non-parametric" bootstrap, *n* pairs (*x*_{i}, *y*_{i}) are resampled "with replacement" from the observed set of *n* pairs, and the correlation coefficient *r* is calculated based on the resampled data. This process is repeated a large number of times, and the empirical distribution of the resampled *r* values are used to approximate the sampling distribution of the statistic. A 95% confidence interval for *?* can be defined as the interval spanning from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile of the resampled *r* values.

For pairs from an uncorrelated bivariate normal distribution, the sampling distribution of a certain function of Pearson's correlation coefficient follows Student's *t*-distribution with degrees of freedom *n* - 2. Specifically, if the underlying variables have a bivariate normal distribution, the variable

has a Student's *t*-distribution in the null case (zero correlation).^{[13]} This also holds approximately even if the observed values are non-normal, provided sample sizes are not very small.^{[14]} For determining the critical values for *r* the inverse of this transformation is also needed:

Alternatively, large sample approaches can be used.

Another early paper^{[15]} provides graphs and tables for general values of *?*, for small sample sizes, and discusses computational approaches.

For data that follows a bivariate normal distribution, the exact density function *f*(*r*) for the sample correlation coefficient *r* of a normal bivariate is
^{[16]}^{[17]}^{[18]}

where is the gamma function and is the Gaussian hypergeometric function.

In the special case when , the exact density function *f(r)* can be written as:

where is the beta function, which is one way of writing the density of a Student's t-distribution, as above.

In practice, confidence intervals and hypothesis tests relating to ? are usually carried out using the Fisher transformation, the inverse hyperbolic function (artanh) of *r*:

If *F*(*r*) is the Fisher transformation of *r*, and *n* is the sample size, then *F*(*r*) approximately follows a normal distribution with

- and standard error

Thus, a z-score is

under the null hypothesis of that , given the assumption that the sample pairs are independent and identically distributed and follow a bivariate normal distribution. Thus an approximate p-value can be obtained from a normal probability table. For example, if *z* = 2.2 is observed and a two-sided p-value is desired to test the null hypothesis that , the p-value is 2·?(-2.2) = 0.028, where ? is the standard normal cumulative distribution function.

To obtain a confidence interval for ?, we first compute a confidence interval for *F*(*):
*

The inverse Fisher transformation brings the interval back to the correlation scale.

For example, suppose we observe *r* = 0.3 with a sample size of *n*=50, and we wish to obtain a 95% confidence interval for ?. The transformed value is artanh(*r*) = 0.30952, so the confidence interval on the transformed scale is 0.30952 ± 1.96/, or (0.023624, 0.595415). Converting back to the correlation scale yields (0.024, 0.534).

The square of the sample correlation coefficient is typically denoted *r*^{2} and is a special case of the coefficient of determination. In this case, it estimates the fraction of the variance in *Y* that is explained by *X* in a simple linear regression. So if we have the observed dataset and the fitted dataset then as a starting point the total variation in the *Y*_{i} around their average value can be decomposed as follows

where the are the fitted values from the regression analysis. This can be rearranged to give

The two summands above are the fraction of variance in *Y* that is explained by *X* (right) and that is unexplained by *X* (left).

Next, we apply a property of least square regression models, that the sample covariance between and is zero. Thus, the sample correlation coefficient between the observed and fitted response values in the regression can be written (calculation is under expectation, assumes Gaussian statistics)

Thus

- where
- is the proportion of variance in
*Y*explained by a linear function of*X*.

- is the proportion of variance in

- where

That equation can be written as:

- where
- is the regression sum of squares, also called the explained sum of squares
- is the total sum of squares (proportional to the variance of the data)

- where

The population Pearson correlation coefficient is defined in terms of moments, and therefore exists for any bivariate probability distribution for which the population covariance is defined and the marginal population variances are defined and are non-zero. Some probability distributions such as the Cauchy distribution have undefined variance and hence ? is not defined if *X* or *Y* follows such a distribution. In some practical applications, such as those involving data suspected to follow a heavy-tailed distribution, this is an important consideration. However, the existence of the correlation coefficient is usually not a concern; for instance, if the range of the distribution is bounded, ? is always defined.

- If the sample size is moderate or large and the population is normal, then, in the case of the bivariate normal distribution, the sample correlation coefficient is the maximum likelihood estimate of the population correlation coefficient, and is asymptotically unbiased and efficient, which roughly means that it is impossible to construct a more accurate estimate than the sample correlation coefficient.
- If the sample size is large and the population is not normal, then the sample correlation coefficient remains approximately unbiased, but may not be efficient.
- If the sample size is large, then the sample correlation coefficient is a consistent estimator of the population correlation coefficient as long as the sample means, variances, and covariance are consistent (which is guaranteed when the law of large numbers can be applied).
- If the sample size is small, then the sample correlation coefficient
*r*is not an unbiased estimate of*?*.^{[5]}The adjusted correlation coefficient must be used instead: see elsewhere in this article for the definition.

Like many commonly used statistics, the sample statistic *r* is not robust,^{[19]} so its value can be misleading if outliers are present.^{[20]}^{[21]} Specifically, the PMCC is neither distributionally robust,^{[]} nor outlier resistant^{[19]} (see Robust statistics#Definition). Inspection of the scatterplot between *X* and *Y* will typically reveal a situation where lack of robustness might be an issue, and in such cases it may be advisable to use a robust measure of association. Note however that while most robust estimators of association measure statistical dependence in some way, they are generally not interpretable on the same scale as the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Statistical inference for Pearson's correlation coefficient is sensitive to the data distribution. Exact tests, and asymptotic tests based on the Fisher transformation can be applied if the data are approximately normally distributed, but may be misleading otherwise. In some situations, the bootstrap can be applied to construct confidence intervals, and permutation tests can be applied to carry out hypothesis tests. These non-parametric approaches may give more meaningful results in some situations where bivariate normality does not hold. However the standard versions of these approaches rely on exchangeability of the data, meaning that there is no ordering or grouping of the data pairs being analyzed that might affect the behavior of the correlation estimate.

A stratified analysis is one way to either accommodate a lack of bivariate normality, or to isolate the correlation resulting from one factor while controlling for another. If *W* represents cluster membership or another factor that it is desirable to control, we can stratify the data based on the value of *W*, then calculate a correlation coefficient within each stratum. The stratum-level estimates can then be combined to estimate the overall correlation while controlling for *W*.^{[22]}

Variations of the correlation coefficient can be calculated for different purposes. Here are some examples.

The sample correlation coefficient *r* is not an unbiased estimate of *?*. For data that follows a bivariate normal distribution, the expectation *E(r)* for the sample correlation coefficient *r* of a normal bivariate is^{[23]}

- therefore
*r*is a biased estimator of

The unique minimum variance unbiased estimator *r _{adj}* is given by

- where:

- are defined as above,
- is the Gaussian hypergeometric function.

An approximately unbiased estimator *r _{adj}* can be obtained

An approximate solution^{[]} to equation (2) is:

- where in (3):

- are defined as above,
*r*is a suboptimal estimator,_{adj}^{[]}^{[clarification needed]}*r*_{adj}can also be obtained by maximizing log(*f*(*r*)),*r*_{adj}has minimum variance for large values of*n*,*r*_{adj}has a bias of order 1/(*n*- 1).

Another proposed^{[5]} adjusted correlation coefficient
is:^{[]}

Note that *r*_{adj} ? *r* for large values of *n*.

Suppose observations to be correlated have differing degrees of importance that can be expressed with a weight vector *w*. To calculate the correlation between vectors *x* and *y* with the weight vector *w* (all of length *n*),^{[25]}^{[26]}

- Weighted mean:

- Weighted covariance

- Weighted correlation

The reflective correlation is a variant of Pearson's correlation in which the data are not centered around their mean values.^{[]} The population reflective correlation is

The reflective correlation is symmetric, but it is not invariant under translation:

The sample reflective correlation is equivalent to cosine similarity:

The weighted version of the sample reflective correlation is

Scaled correlation is a variant of Pearson's correlation in which the range of the data is restricted intentionally and in a controlled manner to reveal correlations between fast components in time series.^{[27]} Scaled correlation is defined as average correlation across short segments of data.

Let be the number of segments that can fit into the total length of the signal for a given scale :

The scaled correlation across the entire signals is then computed as

where is Pearson's coefficient of correlation for segment .

By choosing the parameter , the range of values is reduced and the correlations on long time scale are filtered out, only the correlations on short time scales being revealed. Thus, the contributions of slow components are removed and those of fast components are retained.

A distance metric for two variables X and Y known as *Pearson's distance* can be defined from their correlation coefficient as^{[28]}

Considering that the Pearson correlation coefficient falls between [-1, 1], the Pearson distance lies in [0, 2]. The Pearson distance has been used in cluster analysis and data detection for communications and storage with unknown gain and offset^{[29]}

For variables X = {*x*_{1},...,*x*_{n}} and Y = {*y*_{1},...,*y*_{n}} that are defined on the unit circle it is possible to define a circular analog of Pearson's coefficient.^{[30]} This is done by transforming data points in X and Y with a sine function such that the correlation coefficient is given as:

where and are the circular means of *X* and *Y*. This measure can be useful in fields like meteorology where the angular direction of data is important.

If a population or data-set is characterized by more than two variables, a partial correlation coefficient measures the strength of dependence between a pair of variables that is not accounted for by the way in which they both change in response to variations in a selected subset of the other variables.

It is always possible to remove the correlations between all pairs of an arbitrary number of random variables by using a data transformation, even if the relationship between the variables is nonlinear. A presentation of this result for population distributions is given by Cox & Hinkley.^{[31]}

A corresponding result exists for reducing the sample correlations to zero. Suppose a vector of *n* random variables is observed *m* times. Let *X* be a matrix where is the *j*th variable of observation *i*. Let be an *m* by *m* square matrix with every element 1. Then *D* is the data transformed so every random variable has zero mean, and *T* is the data transformed so all variables have zero mean and zero correlation with all other variables - the sample correlation matrix of *T* will be the identity matrix. This has to be further divided by the standard deviation to get unit variance. The transformed variables will be uncorrelated, even though they may not be independent.

where an exponent of -1/2 represents the matrix square root of the inverse of a matrix. The correlation matrix of *T* will be the identity matrix. If a new data observation *x* is a row vector of *n* elements, then the same transform can be applied to *x* to get the transformed vectors *d* and *t*:

This decorrelation is related to principal components analysis for multivariate data.

- Anscombe's quartet
- Association (statistics)
- Correlation and dependence
- Disattenuation
- Distance correlation
- Maximal information coefficient
- Multiple correlation
- Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
- Partial correlation
- Polychoric correlation
- Quadrant count ratio
- RV coefficient
- Spearman's rank correlation coefficient

**^**""SPSS Tutorials: Pearson Correlation"". Retrieved .**^**See:- As early as 1877, Galton was using the term "reversion" and the symbol "
*r*" for what would become "regression". F. Galton (5, 12, 19 April 1877) "Typical laws of heredity,"*Nature*,**15**(388, 389, 390) : 492-495 ; 512-514 ; 532-533. In the "Appendix" on page 532, Galton uses the term "reversion" and the symbol*r*. - (F. Galton) (24 September 1885), "The British Association: Section II, Anthropology: Opening address by Francis Galton, F.R.S., etc., President of the Anthropological Institute, President of the Section,"
*Nature*,**32**(830) : 507-510. - Galton, F. (1886) "Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature,"
*Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland*,**15**: 246-263.

- As early as 1877, Galton was using the term "reversion" and the symbol "
**^**Karl Pearson (20 June 1895) "Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents,"*Proceedings of the Royal Society of London*,**58**: 240-242.**^**Stigler, Stephen M. (1989). "Francis Galton's Account of the Invention of Correlation".*Statistical Science*.**4**(2): 73-79. doi:10.1214/ss/1177012580. JSTOR 2245329.- ^
^{a}^{b}^{c}^{d}^{e}Real Statistics Using Excel: Correlation: Basic Concepts, retrieved 2015-02-22 **^**Moriya, N. (2008). Fengshan Yang, ed. "Noise-Related Multivariate Optimal Joint-Analysis in Longitudinal Stochastic Processes". Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: 223-260. ISBN 978-1-60021-976-4.**^**Garren, Steven T (15 June 1998). "Maximum likelihood estimation of the correlation coefficient in a bivariate normal model with missing data".*Statistics & Probability Letters*. Elsevier.**38**(3): 281-288. doi:10.1016/S0167-7152(98)00035-2. Retrieved 2015.**^**Rogers and Nicewander (1988). "Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient" (PDF).*The American Statistician*.**42**(1): 59-66. doi:10.2307/2685263.**^**Schmid Jr., John (December 1947). "The Relationship between the Coefficient of Correlation and the Angle Included between Regression Lines".*The Journal of Educational Research*.**41**(4). JSTOR 27528906.**^**Rummel, R. J. (1976). "Understanding Correlation".**^**Buda, Andrzej; Jarynowski, Andrzej (December 2010).*Life time of correlations and its applications*. Wydawnictwo Niezale?ne. pp. 5-21. ISBN 9788391527290.- ^
^{a}^{b}Cohen, J. (1988).*Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences*(2nd ed.) **^**Rahman, N. A. (1968)*A Course in Theoretical Statistics*, Charles Griffin and Company, 1968**^**Kendall, M. G., Stuart, A. (1973)*The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Volume 2: Inference and Relationship*, Griffin. ISBN 0-85264-215-6 (Section 31.19)**^**Soper, H. E.; Young, A. W.; Cave, B. M.; Lee, A.; Pearson, K. (1917). "On the distribution of the correlation coefficient in small samples. Appendix II to the papers of "Student" and R. A. Fisher. A co-operative study".*Biometrika*.**11**: 328-413. doi:10.1093/biomet/11.4.328.**^**Hotelling, H.,*New Light on the Correlation Coefficient and its Transforms*, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) Vol. 15, No. 2 (1953), pp. 193-232**^**Kenney, J. F. and Keeping, E. S.,*Mathematics of Statistics*, Pt. 2, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1951.**^**W., Weisstein, Eric. "Correlation Coefficient--Bivariate Normal Distribution".*mathworld.wolfram.com*.- ^
^{a}^{b}Wilcox, Rand R. (2005).*Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing*. Academic Press. **^**Devlin, Susan J; Gnanadesikan, R; Kettenring J.R. (1975). "Robust Estimation and Outlier Detection with Correlation Coefficients".*Biometrika*.**62**(3): 531-545. doi:10.1093/biomet/62.3.531. JSTOR 2335508.**^**Huber, Peter. J. (2004).*Robust Statistics*. Wiley.^{[page needed]}**^**Katz., Mitchell H. (2006)*Multivariable Analysis - A Practical Guide for Clinicians*. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54985-1. ISBN 0-521-54985-X doi:10.2277/052154985X**^**Hotelling, H. (1953). "New Light on the Correlation Coefficient and its Transforms".*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)*.**15**(2): 193-232. JSTOR 2983768.**^**Olkin, Ingram; Pratt,John W. (March 1958). "Unbiased Estimation of Certain Correlation Coefficients".*The Annals of Mathematical Statistics*.**29**(1): 201-211. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177706717. JSTOR 2237306..**^**"Re: Compute a weighted correlation".*sci.tech-archive.net*.**^**"Weighted Correlation Matrix - File Exchange - MATLAB Central".**^**Nikoli?, D; Muresan, RC; Feng, W; Singer, W (2012). "Scaled correlation analysis: a better way to compute a cross-correlogram" (PDF).*European Journal of Neuroscience*.**35**: 1-21. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07987.x.**^**Fulekar (Ed.), M.H. (2009)*Bioinformatics: Applications in Life and Environmental Sciences*, Springer (pp. 110) ISBN 1-4020-8879-5**^**K. Schouhamer Immink and J. Weber (October 2010). "Minimum Pearson Distance Detection for Multilevel Channels With Gain and/or Offset Mismatch".*IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*.**60**(10): 5966-5974. doi:10.1109/tit.2014.2342744. Retrieved .**^**Jammalamadaka, S. Rao; SenGupta, A. (2001).*Topics in circular statistics*. New Jersey: World Scientific. p. 176. ISBN 981-02-3778-2. Retrieved .**^**Cox, D.R., Hinkley, D.V. (1974)*Theoretical Statistics*, Chapman & Hall (Appendix 3) ISBN 0-412-12420-3

- cocor - A free web interface and R package for the statistical comparison of two dependent or independent correlations with overlapping or non-overlapping variables
- Interactive Flash simulation on the correlation of two normally distributed variables.
- Correlation coefficient calculator - linear regression
- "Critical values for Pearson's correlation coefficient (large table)" (PDF).
- Guess the Correlation - A game where players guess how correlated two variables in a scatter plot are, in order to gain a better understanding of the concept of correlation.

This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

What We've Done

Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.

Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.

Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.

Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.

Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.

Manage research, learning and skills at defaultlogic.com. Create an account using LinkedIn to manage and organize your omni-channel knowledge. defaultlogic.com is like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.