Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and empirical data.
By J. D. de Winter, Samuel D. Gosling, J. Potter. Psychological methods, 2016
1,037 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient (rp) and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) are widely used in psychological research. We compare rp and rs on 3 criteria: variability, bias with respect to the population value, and robustness to an outlier. Using simulations across low (N = 5) to high (N = 1,000) sample sizes we show that, for normally distributed variables, rp and rs have similar expected values but rs is more variable, especially when the correlation is strong. However, when the variables have high kurtosis, rp is more variable than rs. Next, we conducted a sampling study of a psychometric dataset featuring symmetrically distributed data with light tails, and of 2 Likert-type survey datasets, 1 with light-tailed and the other with heavy-tailed distributions. Consistent with the simulations, rp had lower variability than rs in the psychometric dataset. In the survey datasets with heavy-tailed variables in particular, rs had lower variability than rp, and often corresponded more accurately to the population Pearson correlation coefficient (Rp) than rp did. The simulations and the sampling studies showed that variability in terms of standard deviations can be reduced by about 20% by choosing rs instead of rp. In comparison, increasing the sample size by a factor of 2 results in a 41% reduction of the standard deviations of rs and rp. In conclusion, rp is suitable for light-tailed distributions, whereas rs is preferable when variables feature heavy-tailed distributions or when outliers are present, as is often the case in psychological research.
Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5ef15654ad3832c8a39f810453d7299f6487dfdb
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
In Management Science and Operations Research
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- k-Nearest Neighbour Classifiers - A Tutorial (2020, background): “The two most popular correlation coefficients are the Pearson and Spearman measures [16].”
- Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice (2018, methodology): “…methods (e.g., Spearman, phi, polychoric, tetrachoric) as well as judicious selection of EFA estimation methods would be advisable in that case (de Winter et al., 2016; Fabrigar et al., 1999; Fabrigar & Wegener, 2012; Flora et al., 2012; Gorsuch, 1983; Lloret et al., 2017; Revelle, 2016).”