Correlation and the coefficient of determination

By D. Ozer. 1985

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Yanan Sun
2. Bing Xue
3. Handing Wang
4. Yaochu Jin
5. Mengjie Zhang
6. Herman Aguinis
7. Gary G. Yen
8. Jüri Allik

Citations in the corpus

• Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Deep Learning Using an End-to-End Random Forest-Based Performance Predictor (2020, methodology): “For the quantitative comparison, we choose the mean square error (MSE), Kendall’s Tau (KTau) [64], and the coefficient of determination (CoD) [65] as the indicators suggested in [32].”
• Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense (2019, background): “Similarly, a correlation of .4 reveals an effect twice as large as a correlation of .2; moreover, half of a perfect association is .5, not .707 (Ozer, 1985, 2007).”
• Generalized Measures of Correlation for Asymmetry, Nonlinearity, and Beyond (2012, result): “This phenomenon has been witnessed in many published articles, for example, O’Grady (1982), Ozer (1985), DrouetMari and Kotz (2001), and Zhang (2008), among many others.”
• Improving Risk Assessments for Sex Offenders: A Comparison of Three Actuarial Scales (2000, background): “Even if such an argument was correct (and many argue that it is not—see Ozer, 1985 ), most decision”
• Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. (2011, unknown): “Ozer (1985) cautioned that R 2 may not be interpretable as a proportion of variance in many circumstances, which undermines any effect size index that depends on this interpretation.”
• Correlates of Environmental Behaviors (2001, background): “For example, they might underestimate empirical relationships through the correlation coefficient (Achen, 1977; Kraus, 1995; Ozer, 1985; Rosenthal, 1990).”
• A Five-Factor Theory Perspective (2002, background): “…for all five factors: The median value of .45 means that almost half of the variance in rating scores is attributable to the trait itself (Ozer, 1985), the other half being error—that is, mistakes and biases in perception, careless responding, legitimate differences of opinion, different…”
• Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: a meta-analysis. (2011, background): “Even after considering possible qualifications of the statistics (e.g., Ozer, 1985), 97% of the variance remains unexplained (coefficient of non-determination).”
• Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, background): “…statistical anal- ysis (e.g., meta-analysis; Bayesian techniques; Kruschke, Aguinis, & Joo, 2012), and the assessment of scientific progress (Cohen, 1988; Cumming, 2012; Grissom & Kim, 2012; Ozer, 1985), as well as practical significance (Aguinis et al., 2010; Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014).”
• A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the graduate record examinations: implications for graduate student selection and performance. (2001, background): “The argument that one should reject a predictor because the variance accounted for is only 1%, 2%, 5%, or 10% is shortsighted, not to mention potentially wrong (Ozer, 1985).”