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
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 of ordinal level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
H_{0}: $m = m_0$
Here $m$ is the population median, and $m_0$ is the population median according to the null hypothesis.
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
H_{1} two sided: $m \neq m_0$
H_{1} right sided: $m > m_0$
H_{1} left sided: $m < m_0$
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
The population distribution of the scores is symmetric
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
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
Two different types of test statistics can be used, but both will result in the same test outcome. We will denote the first option the $W_1$ statistic (also known as the $T$ statistic), and the second option the $W_2$ statistic.
In order to compute each of the test statistics, follow the steps below:
For each subject, compute the sign of the difference score $\mbox{sign}_d = \mbox{sgn}(\mbox{score}  m_0)$. The sign is 1 if the difference is larger than zero, 1 if the diffence is smaller than zero, and 0 if the difference is equal to zero.
For each subject, compute the absolute value of the difference score $\mbox{score}  m_0$.
Exclude subjects with a difference score of zero. This leaves us with a remaining number of difference scores equal to $N_r$.
Assign ranks $R_d$ to the $N_r$ remaining absolute difference scores. The smallest absolute difference score corresponds to a rank score of 1, and the largest absolute difference score corresponds to a rank score of $N_r$. If there are ties, assign them the average of the ranks they occupy.
Then compute the test statistic:
$W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{+}$
or
$W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{}$
That is, sum all ranks corresponding to a positive difference or sum all ranks corresponding to a negative difference. Theoratically, both definitions will result in the same test outcome. However:
Tables with critical values for $W_1$ are usually based on the smaller of $\sum\, R_d^{+}$ and $\sum\, R_d^{}$. So if you are using such a table, pick the smaller one.
If you are using the normal approximation to find the $p$ value, it makes things most straightforward if you use $W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{+}$ (if you use $W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{}$, the right and left sided alternative hypotheses 'flip').
$W_2 = \sum\, \mbox{sign}_d \times R_d$
That is, for each remaining difference score, multiply the rank of the absolute difference score by the sign of the difference score, and then sum all of the products.
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
Sampling distribution of $W_1$ and of $W_2$ if H_{0} were true
Sampling distribution of $X^2$ and of the Wald statistic if H_{0} were true
Sampling distribution of $W_1$:
If $N_r$ is large, $W_1$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_{W_1}$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{W_1}$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$\mu_{W_1} = \frac{N_r(N_r + 1)}{4}$$
$$\sigma_{W_1} = \sqrt{\frac{N_r(N_r + 1)(2N_r + 1)}{24}}$$
Hence, if $N_r$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W_1  \mu_{W_1}}{\sigma_{W_1}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
Sampling distribution of $W_2$:
If $N_r$ is large, $W_2$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{W_2}$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$\sigma_{W_2} = \sqrt{\frac{N_r(N_r + 1)(2N_r + 1)}{6}}$$
Hence, if $N_r$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W_2}{\sigma_{W_2}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
If $N_r$ is small, the exact distribution of $W_1$ or $W_2$ should be used.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for the standard deviations $\sigma_{W_1}$ and $\sigma_{W_2}$ is more complicated.
Sampling distribution of $X^2$, as computed in the model chisquared test for the complete model:
chisquared distribution with $K$ (number of independent variables) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of the Wald statistic:
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: approximately the chisquared distribution with 1 degree of freedom
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: approximately the standard normal distribution
Sampling distribution of $X^2$, as computed in the likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual $\beta_k$:
chisquared distribution with 1 degree of freedom
Sampling distribution of $t$:
$t$ distribution with $N  2$ degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $z$:
Approximately the standard normal distribution
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
For large samples, 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 $\alpha$
For the model chisquared test for the complete regression model and likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual $\beta_k$:
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 $\rho$:
$R^2_L = \dfrac{D_{null}  D_K}{D_{null}}$
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.
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 median mental health score of office workers different from $m_0 = 50$?
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
Specify the measurement level of your variable on the Variable View tab, in the column named Measure. Then go to:
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > One Sample...
On the Objective tab, choose Customize Analysis
On the Fields tab, specify the variable for which you want to compute the Wilcoxon signedrank test
On the Settings tab, choose Customize tests and check the box for 'Compare median to hypothesized (Wilcoxon signedrank test)'. Fill in your $m_0$ in the box next to Hypothesized median
Click Run
Double click on the output table to see the full results
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
TTests > One Sample TTest
Put your variable in the box below Dependent Variables
Under Tests, select Wilcoxon rank
Under Hypothesis, fill in the value for $m_0$ in the box next to Test Value, and select your alternative hypothesis
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