Should Pearson's correlation coefficient be avoided?
Richard A Armstrong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12636
2019-08-18
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
Abstract:<h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Purpose</h3><p>To survey the use of Pearson's correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>) and related statistical methods in the ophthalmic literature, to consider the limitations of <i>r</i>, and to suggest suitable alternative methods of analysis. </p><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Recent findings</h3><p>Searching <i>Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (OPO), Optometry and Vision Science (OVS), and Clinical and Experimental Optometry (CXO)</i> online archives using <i>correlation</i> and <i>Pearson's r</i> as search terms resulted in 4057 and 281 hits respectively. C<i>oefficient of determination</i>,<i> r square</i>, or <i>r squared</i> received fewer hits (65, 8, and 22 hits respectively). The assumption that <i>r</i> follows a <i>bivariate normal distribution</i> was rarely encountered (3 hits) although several studies applied <i>Spearman's rank correlation</i> (70 hits). The <i>intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC)</i> was widely used (178 hits), but fewer hits were recorded for <i>partial correlation</i> (43 hits) and <i>multiple correlation</i> (13) hits. There was little evidence that the problem of sample size was addressed in correlation studies. </p><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Summary</h3><p>Investigators should be alert to whether: (1) the relationship between two variables could be non‐linear, (2) the data are bivariate normal, (3) <i>r</i> accounts for a significant proportion of the variance in <i>Y</i>, (4) outliers are present, the data are clustered, or have a restricted range, (5) the sample size is appropriate, and (6) a significant correlation indicates causality. In addition, the number of significant digits used to express <i>r</i> and the problems of multiple testing should be addressed. The problems and limitations of <i>r</i> suggest a more cautious approach regarding its use and the application of alternative methods where appropriate. </p>
ophthalmology