This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons by clicking on the dropdown button in the righthand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table
Two categorical, the first with $I$ independent groups and the second with $J$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$, $J \geqslant 2$)
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variables
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Variable 2
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H_{0} for main and interaction effects together (model): no main effects and interaction effect
H_{0} for independent variable A: no main effect for A
H_{0} for independent variable B: no main effect for B
H_{0} for the interaction term: no interaction effect between A and B
Like in one way ANOVA, we can also perform $t$ tests for specific contrasts and multiple comparisons. This is more advanced stuff.
Model chisquared test for the complete regression model:
H_{0}: $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \ldots = \beta_K = 0$
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{0}: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
Likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{0}: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
in the regression equation
$
\ln \big(\frac{\pi_{y = 1}}{1  \pi_{y = 1}} \big) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times x_1 + \beta_2 \times x_2 + \ldots + \beta_K \times x_K
$. Here $ x_i$ represents independent variable $ i$, $\beta_i$ is the regression weight for independent variable $ x_i$, and $\pi_{y = 1}$ represents the true probability that the dependent variable $ y = 1$ (or equivalently, the proportion of $ y = 1$ in the population) given the scores on the independent variables.
H_{0}: $\rho = \rho_0$
Here $\rho$ is the Pearson correlation in the population, and $\rho_0$ is the Pearson correlation in the population according to the null hypothesis (usually 0). The Pearson correlation is a measure for the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables of at least interval measurement level.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H_{1} for main and interaction effects together (model): there is a main effect for A, and/or for B, and/or an interaction effect
H_{1} for independent variable A: there is a main effect for A
H_{1} for independent variable B: there is a main effect for B
H_{1} for the interaction term: there is an interaction effect between A and B
Model chisquared test for the complete regression model:
H_{1}: not all population regression coefficients are 0
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1}: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{1}: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$ (see 'Test statistic'), also one sided alternatives can be tested:
H_{1} right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
H_{1} left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1}: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{1}: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
H_{1} two sided: $\rho \neq \rho_0$
H_{1} right sided: $\rho > \rho_0$
H_{1} left sided: $\rho < \rho_0$
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions of test for correlation
Within each of the $I \times J$ populations, the scores on the dependent variable are normally distributed
The standard deviation of the scores on the dependent variable is the same in each of the $I \times J$ populations
For each of the $I \times J$ groups, the sample is an independent and simple random sample from the population defined by that group. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Equal sample sizes for each group make the interpretation of the ANOVA output easier (unequal sample sizes result in overlap in the sum of squares; this is advanced stuff)
In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the log odds $\ln (\frac{\pi_{y=1}}{1  \pi_{y=1}})$ is linear
The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
Multicollinearity
Outliers
In the population, the two variables are jointly normally distributed (this covers the normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity assumptions)
Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another
Note: these assumptions are only important for the significance test and confidence interval, not for the correlation coefficient itself. The correlation coefficient just measures the strength of the linear relationship between two variables.
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
For main and interaction effects together (model):
Note: mean square error is also known as mean square residual or mean square within.
Model chisquared test for the complete regression model:
$X^2 = D_{null}  D_K = \mbox{null deviance}  \mbox{model deviance} $
$D_{null}$, the null deviance, is conceptually similar to the total variance of the dependent variable in OLS regression analysis. $D_K$, the model deviance, is conceptually similar to the residual variance in OLS regression analysis.
Wald test for individual $\beta_k$:
The wald statistic can be defined in two ways:
Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$
Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
SPSS uses the first definition.
Likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual $\beta_k$:
$X^2 = D_{K1}  D_K$
$D_{K1}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is excluded from the model. $D_{K}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is included in the model.
Test statistic for testing H0: $\rho = 0$:
$t = \dfrac{r \times \sqrt{N  2}}{\sqrt{1  r^2}} $
where $r$ is the sample correlation $r = \frac{1}{N  1} \sum_{j}\Big(\frac{x_{j}  \bar{x}}{s_x} \Big) \Big(\frac{y_{j}  \bar{y}}{s_y} \Big)$ and $N$ is the sample size
Test statistic for testing values for $\rho$ other than $\rho = 0$:
$r_{Fisher} = \dfrac{1}{2} \times \log\Bigg(\dfrac{1 + r}{1  r} \Bigg )$, where $r$ is the sample correlation
$\rho_{0_{Fisher}} = \dfrac{1}{2} \times \log\Bigg( \dfrac{1 + \rho_0}{1  \rho_0} \Bigg )$, where $\rho_0$ is the population correlation according to H0
Pooled standard deviation
n.a.
n.a.
$
\begin{aligned}
s_p &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score}  \mbox{its group mean})^2}{N  (I \times J)}}\\
&= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\
&= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$


Sampling distribution of $F$ if H_{0} were true
Sampling distribution of $X^2$ and of the Wald statistic if H_{0} were true
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
For the Wald test:
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for the chisquared tests. Wald can be interpret as $X^2$
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for any $z$ test. Wald can be interpreted as $z$.
$t$ Test two sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test right sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test left sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$z$ Test two sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $z^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$z$ Test right sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $z^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$z$ Test left sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $z^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
n.a.
Waldtype approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$
Approximate $C$% confidence interval for $\rho$

$b_k \pm z^* \times SE_{b_k}$
where the critical value $z^*$ is the value under the normal curve with the area $C / 100$ between $z^*$ and $z^*$ (e.g. $z^*$ = 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval).
First compute the approximate $C$% confidence interval for $\rho_{Fisher}$:
where $r_{Fisher} = \frac{1}{2} \times \log\Bigg(\dfrac{1 + r}{1  r} \Bigg )$ and the critical value $z^*$ is the value under the normal curve with the area $C / 100$ between $z^*$ and $z^*$ (e.g. $z^*$ = 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval).
Then transform back to get the approximate $C$% confidence interval for $\rho$:
Proportion variance explained $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the independent variables and the interaction effect together:
$$
\begin{align}
R^2 &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}
\end{align}
$$
$R^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.
Proportion variance explained $\eta^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by an independent variable or interaction effect:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_A &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
\\
\eta^2_B &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{int} &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}
\end{align}
$$
$\eta^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.
Proportion variance explained $\omega^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $\eta^2$ and is equal to:
$$
\begin{align}
\omega^2_A &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares A}  \mbox{degrees of freedom A} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\\
\omega^2_B &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares B}  \mbox{degrees of freedom B} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\\
\omega^2_{int} &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares int}  \mbox{degrees of freedom int} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\end{align}
$$
$\omega^2$ is a better estimate of the explained variance in the population than
$\eta^2$. Only for balanced designs (equal sample sizes).
Proportion variance explained $\eta^2_{partial}$:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_{partial\,A} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares A} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,B} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares B} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,int} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares int} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}
\end{align}
$$
$R^2_L = \dfrac{D_{null}  D_K}{D_{null}}$
There are several other goodness of fit measures in logistic regression. In logistic regression, there is no single agreed upon measure of goodness of fit.
The Pearson correlation coefficient is a measure for the linear relationship between two quantitative variables.
The Pearson correlation coefficient squared reflects the proportion of variance explained in one variable by the other variable.
The Pearson correlation coefficient can take on values between 1 (perfect negative relationship) and 1 (perfect positive relationship). A value of 0 means no linear relationship.
The absolute size of the Pearson correlation coefficient is not affected by any linear transformation of the variables. However, the sign of the Pearson correlation will flip when the scores on one of the two variables are multiplied by a negative number (reversing the direction of measurement of that variable). For example:
the correlation between $x$ and $y$ is equivalent to the correlation between $3x + 5$ and $2y  6$.
the absolute value of the correlation between $x$ and $y$ is equivalent to the absolute value of the correlation between $3x + 5$ and $2y  6$. However, the signs of the two correlation coefficients will be in opposite directions, due to the multiplication of $x$ by $3$.
The Pearson correlation coefficient does not say anything about causality.
The Pearson correlation coefficient is sensitive to outliers.
ANOVA table
n.a.
n.a.


Equivalent to
n.a.
Equivalent to
OLS regression with two categorical independent variables and the interaction term, transformed into $(I  1)$ + $(J  1)$ + $(I  1) \times (J  1)$ code variables.
Results significance test ($t$ and $p$ value) testing $H_0$: $\beta_1 = 0$ are equivalent to results significance test testing $H_0$: $\rho = 0$
Example context
Example context
Example context
Is the average mental health score different between people from a low, moderate, and high economic class? And is the average mental health score different between men and women? And is there an interaction effect between economic class and gender?
Can body mass index, stress level, and gender predict whether people get diagnosed with diabetes?
Is there a linear relationship between physical health and mental health?
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
Analyze > General Linear Model > Univariate...
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your two independent (grouping) variables in the box below Fixed Factor(s)
Analyze > Regression > Binary Logistic...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Covariate(s)
Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate...
Put your two variables in the box below Variables
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
ANOVA > ANOVA
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your two independent (grouping) variables in the box below Fixed Factors
Regression > 2 Outcomes  Binomial
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent variables of interval/ratio level in the box below Covariates
If you also have code (dummy) variables as independent variables, you can put these in the box below Covariates as well
Instead of transforming your categorical independent variable(s) into code variables, you can also put the untransformed categorical independent variables in the box below Factors. Jamovi will then make the code variables for you 'behind the scenes'
Regression > Correlation Matrix
Put your two variables in the white box at the right
Under Correlation Coefficients, select Pearson (selected by default)
Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis