This is a quick, simple measure of correlation based only on the direction of changes in the two series. For each successive pair, mark the change with "+" (increase), "−" (decrease) or "0".
A pair of corresponding deviations is called concurrent if both have the same sign.
where \(c\) is the number of pairs of concurrent deviations and \(n\) is the number of pairs of deviations (i.e., one less than number of observations). The sign inside & outside the square root is taken positive if \(2c - n > 0\), negative otherwise.
Series of 6 observations of \(X\) and \(Y\). Direction of changes (5 differences each): X gives +,+,−,+,−; Y gives +,−,−,+,−. Concurrent (same sign) pairs: positions 1 (+,+), 3 (−,−), 4 (+,+), 5 (−,−) ⇒ \(c = 4,\; n = 5\).
\(r_c = \sqrt{(2 \cdot 4 - 5)/5} = \sqrt{3/5} = +0.775\).
If \(c = 1, n = 5\) (mostly opposite directions): \(2c - n = -3 < 0\), so
\(r_c = -\sqrt{|-3|/5} = -\sqrt{0.6} = -0.775\).
The probable error (P.E.) of the correlation coefficient measures its reliability:
\[ \text{P.E.}(r) \;=\; 0.6745 \cdot \dfrac{1 - r^2}{\sqrt{n}}. \]The constant 0.6745 corresponds to 50 % confidence under normal theory.
For \(r = 0.8, n = 25\): \(\text{P.E.} = 0.6745(1 - 0.64)/5 = 0.6745(0.36)/5 = 0.0486\).
Since \(|r| = 0.8 \gg 6(0.0486) = 0.29\), correlation is highly significant.
For \(r = 0.2, n = 16\): \(\text{P.E.} = 0.6745 (0.96)/4 = 0.162\).
Since \(|r| = 0.2 \approx \text{P.E.}\), correlation is not significant.
The coefficient of determination is the square of the correlation coefficient, \(r^2\). It represents the proportion of variation in \(Y\) explained by the linear relationship with \(X\).
If \(r = 0.9\), then \(r^2 = 0.81\): about 81 % of variation in \(Y\) is explained by \(X\); 19 % is unexplained.
For \(r = 0.5\), only 25 % of variability is explained — a lot of variation remains.
For three variables \(X_1, X_2, X_3\), the multiple correlation coefficient of \(X_1\) on \(X_2\) and \(X_3\) measures the linear relationship between \(X_1\) and the joint behaviour of \(X_2, X_3\). Notation: \(R_{1.23}\).
Given \(r_{12} = 0.7,\; r_{13} = 0.6,\; r_{23} = 0.4\):
\(R_{1.23}^2 = (0.49 + 0.36 - 2(0.7)(0.6)(0.4))/(1 - 0.16) = (0.85 - 0.336)/0.84 = 0.514/0.84 = 0.612\).
\(R_{1.23} = 0.782\). About 61.2 % of variation in \(X_1\) is explained jointly by \(X_2, X_3\).
If \(r_{12} = r_{13} = 0.5\) and \(r_{23} = 0\): the predictors are uncorrelated, so
\(R_{1.23}^2 = (0.25 + 0.25 - 0)/1 = 0.5\). \(R_{1.23} = 0.707\).
The partial correlation between \(X_1\) and \(X_2\) keeping \(X_3\) constant measures the correlation after removing the influence of \(X_3\). Notation: \(r_{12.3}\).
Similarly:
\[ r_{13.2} \;=\; \dfrac{r_{13} - r_{12}\, r_{23}}{\sqrt{(1 - r_{12}^2)(1 - r_{23}^2)}}, \quad r_{23.1} \;=\; \dfrac{r_{23} - r_{12}\, r_{13}}{\sqrt{(1 - r_{12}^2)(1 - r_{13}^2)}}. \]Continuing previous example: \(r_{12} = 0.7,\; r_{13} = 0.6,\; r_{23} = 0.4\).
\(r_{12.3} = (0.7 - 0.6 \cdot 0.4)/\sqrt{(1 - 0.36)(1 - 0.16)} = (0.7 - 0.24)/\sqrt{0.64 \cdot 0.84} = 0.46/\sqrt{0.5376} = 0.46/0.7332 = 0.628\).
So after removing the effect of \(X_3\), \(X_1\) and \(X_2\) still have a moderate-to-strong positive correlation.
If \(r_{12} = 0.4,\; r_{13} = 0.8,\; r_{23} = 0.5\): \(r_{12.3} = (0.4 - 0.4)/\sqrt{0.36 \cdot 0.75} = 0\).
Apparent correlation between \(X_1, X_2\) is fully explained by \(X_3\) — a classic spurious correlation.
Intra-class correlation coefficient (\(r_I\)) measures the correlation among members of the same family / class / group when the order within a class is irrelevant.
Suppose data are grouped into \(k\) classes, each of size \(p\). Let \(\sigma^2\) be the total variance and \(\sigma_b^2\) the variance between class means. Then
\[ r_I \;=\; \dfrac{p\, \sigma_b^2 - \sigma^2}{(p - 1)\, \sigma^2}. \]For 5 families of 4 children each — total variance 25, between-family variance 16: \(p = 4\).
\(r_I = (4 \cdot 16 - 25)/(3 \cdot 25) = (64 - 25)/75 = 39/75 = 0.52\).
The correlation ratio of \(Y\) on \(X\), denoted \(\eta_{yx}\), measures both linear and non-linear association:
\[ \eta_{yx}^2 \;=\; \dfrac{\text{Variance of group means of }Y}{\text{Total variance of }Y} \;=\; \dfrac{\sigma_b^2}{\sigma_y^2}. \]Group \(Y\) by values of \(X\). If between-group variance is 80 and total variance of \(Y\) is 100, then \(\eta_{yx}^2 = 0.8\), \(\eta_{yx} = 0.894\).
If for the same data \(r = 0.7\), then \(\eta - r = 0.194\) — a sizeable gap, suggesting the relation is not linear (whether it is significant needs a test, e.g. the \(F\) test of \(\eta^2 - r^2\)).