↓ Skip to main content

Underestimation of Pearson’s product moment correlation statistic

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Underestimation of Pearson’s product moment correlation statistic
Published in
Oecologia, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00442-018-4233-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalind K. Humphreys, Marie-Therese Puth, Markus Neuhäuser, Graeme D. Ruxton

Abstract

Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient (more commonly Pearson's r) tends to underestimate correlations that exist in the underlying population. This phenomenon is generally unappreciated in studies of ecology, although a range of corrections are suggested in the statistical literature. The use of Pearson's r as the classical measure for correlation is widespread in ecology, where manipulative experiments are impractical across the large spatial scales concerned; it is therefore vital that ecologists are able to use this correlation measure as effectively as possible. Here, our literature review suggests that corrections for the issue of underestimation in Pearson's r should not be adopted if either the data deviate from bivariate normality or sample size is greater than around 30. Through our simulations, we then aim to offer advice to researchers in ecology on situations where both distributions can be described as normal, but sample sizes are lower than around 30. We found that none of the methods currently offered in the literature to correct the underestimation bias offer consistently reliable performance, and so we do not recommend that they be implemented when making inferences about the behaviour of a population from a sample. We also suggest that, when considering the importance of the bias towards underestimation in Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient for biological conclusions, the likely extent of the bias should be discussed. Unless sample size is very small, the issue of sample bias is unlikely to call for substantial modification of study conclusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Lecturer 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 28 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 16%
Environmental Science 10 10%
Psychology 8 8%
Engineering 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2019.
All research outputs
#20,529,173
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#4,013
of 4,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,006
of 329,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#60
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.