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
Sign test
Pearson correlation
$z$ test for the difference between two proportions
One within subject factor ($\geq 2$ related groups)
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variables
Dependent variable
Variable 2
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
One of ordinal level
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
One of ordinal level
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
H_{0}: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) = P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as:
H_{0}: the population median of the difference scores is equal to zero
A difference score is the difference between the first score of a pair and the second score of a pair.
H_{0}: $\rho = \rho_0$
$\rho$ is the unknown Pearson correlation in the population, $\rho_0$ is the 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.
H_{0}: $\pi_1 = \pi_2$
$\pi_1$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group 1; $\pi_2$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group 2
H_{0}: the population scores in any of the related groups are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in any of the other related groups
Usually the related groups are the different measurement points. Several different formulations of the null hypothesis can be found in the literature, and we do not agree with all of them. Make sure you (also) learn the one that is given in your text book or by your teacher.
H_{0}: the variance explained by all the independent variables together (the complete model) is 0 in the population, i.e. $\rho^2 = 0$
$t$ test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
in the regression equation
$
\mu_y = \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 $\mu_y$ represents the population mean of the dependent variable $ y$ given the scores on the independent variables.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
H_{1} two sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) $\neq$ P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
H_{1} right sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) > P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
H_{1} left sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) < P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as:
H_{1} two sided: the population median of the difference scores is different from zero
H_{1} right sided: the population median of the difference scores is larger than zero
H_{1} left sided: the population median of the difference scores is smaller than zero
H_{1} two sided: $\rho \neq \rho_0$
H_{1} right sided: $\rho > \rho_0$
H_{1} left sided: $\rho < \rho_0$
H_{1} two sided: $\pi_1 \neq \pi_2$
H_{1} right sided: $\pi_1 > \pi_2$
H_{1} left sided: $\pi_1 < \pi_2$
H_{1}: the population scores in some of the related groups are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in other related groups
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
H_{1}: not all population regression coefficients are 0 or equivalenty
H_{1}: the variance explained by all the independent variables together (the complete model) is larger than 0 in the population, i.e. $\rho^2 > 0$
$t$ test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1} two sided: $\beta_k \neq 0$
H_{1} right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
H_{1} left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Assumptions
Assumptions of test for correlation
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another
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.
Sample size is large enough for $z$ to be approximately normally distributed. Rule of thumb:
Significance test: number of successes and number of failures are each 5 or more in both sample groups
Regular (large sample) 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence interval: number of successes and number of failures are each 10 or more in both sample groups
Plus four 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence interval: sample sizes of both groups are 5 or more
Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Sample of 'blocks' (usually the subjects) is a simple random sample from the population. That is, blocks are independent of one another
In the population, the residuals are normally distributed at each combination of values of the independent variables
In the population, the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the residuals is the same for each combination of values of the independent variables (homoscedasticity)
In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the mean of the dependent variable $\mu_y$ is linear. If this linearity assumption holds, the mean of the residuals is 0 for each combination of values of the independent variables
The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
Multicollinearity
Outliers
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
$W = $ number of difference scores that is larger than 0
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
$z = \dfrac{p_1  p_2}{\sqrt{p(1  p)\Bigg(\dfrac{1}{n_1} + \dfrac{1}{n_2}\Bigg)}}$
$p_1$ is the sample proportion of successes in group 1: $\dfrac{X_1}{n_1}$,
$p_2$ is the sample proportion of successes in group 2: $\dfrac{X_2}{n_2}$,
$p$ is the total proportion of successes in the sample: $\dfrac{X_1 + X_2}{n_1 + n_2}$,
$n_1$ is the sample size of group 1, $n_2$ is the sample size of group 2
Note: we could just as well compute $p_2  p_1$ in the numerator, but then the left sided alternative becomes $\pi_2 < \pi_1$, and the right sided alternative becomes $\pi_2 > \pi_1$
Here $N$ is the number of 'blocks' (usually the subjects  so if you have 4 repeated measurements for 60 subjects, $N$ equals 60), $k$ is the number of related groups (usually the number of repeated measurements), and $R_i$ is the sum of ranks in group $i$.
Remember that multiplication precedes addition, so first compute $\frac{12}{N \times k(k + 1)} \times \sum R^2_i$ and then subtract $3 \times N(k + 1)$.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for $Q$ is more complicated.
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
$
\begin{aligned}[t]
F &= \dfrac{\sum (\hat{y}_j  \bar{y})^2 / K}{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  K  1)}\\
&= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model} / \mbox{degrees of freedom model}}{\mbox{sum of squares error} / \mbox{degrees of freedom error}}\\
&= \dfrac{\mbox{mean square model}}{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
where $\hat{y}_j$ is the predicted score on the dependent variable $y$ of subject $j$, $\bar{y}$ is the mean of $y$, $y_j$ is the score on $y$ of subject $j$, $N$ is the total sample size, and $K$ is the number of independent variables
$t$ test for individual $\beta_k$:
$t = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
If only one independent variable: $SE_{b_1} = \dfrac{\sqrt{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  2)}}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}} = \dfrac{s}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$, with $s$ the sample standard deviation of the residuals, $x_j$ the score of subject $j$ on the independent variable $x$, and $\bar{x}$ the mean of $x$. For models with more than one independent variable, computing $SE_{b_k}$ becomes complicated
Note 1: mean square model is also known as mean square regression; mean square error is also known as mean square residual
Note 2: if only one independent variable ($K = 1$), the $F$ test for the complete regression model is equivalent to the two sided $t$ test for $\beta_1$
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Sample standard deviation of the residuals $s$




$\begin{aligned}
s &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2}{N  K  1}}\\ &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\ &= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
The exact distribution of $W$ under the null hypothesis is the Binomial($n$, $P$) distribution, with $n =$ number of positive differences $+$ number of negative differences, and $P = 0.5$.
If $n$ is large, $W$ is approximately normally distributed under the null hypothesis, with mean $nP = n \times 0.5$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{nP(1P)} = \sqrt{n \times 0.5(1  0.5)}$. Hence, if $n$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W  n \times 0.5}{\sqrt{n \times 0.5(1  0.5)}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
Sampling distribution of $t$:
$t$ distribution with $N  2$ degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $z$:
Approximately the standard normal distribution
Approximately the standard normal distribution
If the number of blocks $N$ is large, approximately the chisquared distribution with $k  1$ degrees of freedom.
For small samples, the exact distribution of
$Q$ should be used.
Sampling distribution of $F$:
$F$ distribution with $K$ (df model, numerator) and $N  K  1$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $t$:
$t$ distribution with $N  K  1$ (df error) degrees of freedom
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
If $n$ is small, the table for the binomial distribution should be used:
Two sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
If $n$ is large, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used:
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 $\alpha$
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 $\alpha$
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 $\alpha$
$t$ 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 $\alpha$
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 $\alpha$
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 $\alpha$
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 $\alpha$
If the number of blocks $N$ is large, the table with critical $X^2$ values can be used. If we denote $X^2 = Q$:
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 $\rho$:
$(p_1  p_2) \pm z^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{p_1(1  p_1)}{n_1} + \dfrac{p_2(1  p_2)}{n_2}}$
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)
With plus four method:
$(p_{1.plus}  p_{2.plus}) \pm z^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{p_{1.plus}(1  p_{1.plus})}{n_1 + 2} + \dfrac{p_{2.plus}(1  p_{2.plus})}{n_2 + 2}}$
where $p_{1.plus} = \dfrac{X_1 + 1}{n_1 + 2}$, $p_{2.plus} = \dfrac{X_2 + 1}{n_2 + 2}$, 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)

Confidence interval for $\beta_k$:
$b_k \pm t^* \times SE_{b_k}$
If only one independent variable: $SE_{b_1} = \dfrac{\sqrt{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  2)}}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}} = \dfrac{s}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
Confidence interval for $\mu_y$, the population mean of $y$ given the values on the independent variables:
$\hat{y} \pm t^* \times SE_{\hat{y}}$
If only one independent variable:
$SE_{\hat{y}} = s \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{N} + \dfrac{(x^*  \bar{x})^2}{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
Prediction interval for $y_{new}$, the score on $y$ of a future respondent:
$\hat{y} \pm t^* \times SE_{y_{new}}$
If only one independent variable:
$SE_{y_{new}} = s \sqrt{1 + \dfrac{1}{N} + \dfrac{(x^*  \bar{x})^2}{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
In all formulas, the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N  K  1}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20).
n.a.
Properties of the Pearson correlation coefficient
n.a.
n.a.
Effect size

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.


Complete model:
Proportion variance explained $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the sample regression equation (the independent variables):
$$
\begin{align}
R^2 &= \dfrac{\sum (\hat{y}_j  \bar{y})^2}{\sum (y_j  \bar{y})^2}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
&= 1  \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
&= r(y, \hat{y})^2
\end{align}
$$
$R^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample by the sample regression equation. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population by the population regression equation, $\rho^2$. If there is only one independent variable, $R^2 = r^2$: the correlation between the independent variable $x$ and dependent variable $y$ squared.
Wherry's $R^2$ / shrunken $R^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $R^2$ and is equal to
$$R^2_W = 1  \frac{N  1}{N  K  1}(1  R^2)$$
$R^2_W$ is a less biased estimate than $R^2$ of the proportion variance explained in the population by the population regression equation, $\rho^2$
Stein's $R^2$:
Estimates the proportion of variance in $y$ that we expect the current sample regression equation to explain in a different sample drawn from the same population. It is equal to
$$R^2_S = 1  \frac{(N  1)(N  2)(N + 1)}{(N  K  1)(N  K  2)(N)}(1  R^2)$$
Per independent variable:
Correlation squared $r^2_k$: the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable $y$ that is explained by the independent variable $x_k$, not corrected for the other independent variables in the model
Semipartial correlation squared $sr^2_k$: the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable $y$ that is uniquely explained by the independent variable $x_k$, beyond the part that is already explained by the other independent variables in the model
Partial correlation squared $pr^2_k$: the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable $y$ not explained by the other independent variables, that is uniquely explained by the independent variable $x_k$
Do people tend to score higher on mental health after a mindfulness course?
Is there a linear relationship between physical health and mental health?
Is the proportion of smokers different between men and women? Use the normal approximation for the sampling distribution of the test statistic.
Is there a difference in depression level between measurement point 1 (preintervention), measurement point 2 (1 week postintervention), and measurement point 3 (6 weeks postintervention)?
Can mental health be predicted from fysical health, economic class, and gender?
Put the two paired variables in the boxes below Variable 1 and Variable 2
Under Test Type, select the Sign test
Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate...
Put your two variables in the box below Variables
SPSS does not have a specific option for the $z$ test for the difference between two proportions. However, you can do the chisquared test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this chisquared test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the $z$ test. Go to:
Analyze > Descriptive Statistics > Crosstabs...
Put your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Row(s), and your dependent variable in the box below Column(s)
Click the Statistics... button, and click on the square in front of Chisquare
Continue and click OK
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > Legacy Dialogs > K Related Samples...
Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the white box below Test Variables
Under Test Type, select the Friedman test
Analyze > Regression > Linear...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Independent(s)
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the sign test. However, you can do the Friedman test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this Friedman test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the sign test. Go to:
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA  Friedman
Put the two paired variables in the box below Measures
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
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the $z$ test for the difference between two proportions. However, you can do the chisquared test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this chisquared test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the $z$ test. Go to:
Frequencies > Independent Samples  $\chi^2$ test of association
Put your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Rows, and your dependent variable in the box below Columns
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA  Friedman
Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the box below Measures
Regression > Linear Regression
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'