Are you as a data scientist trying to decipher relationship between two or more variables within vast datasets to solve real-world problems? Whether it’s understanding the connection between physical exercise and heart health, or the link between study habits and exam scores, uncovering these relationships is crucial. But with different methods at our disposal, how do we choose the most suitable one? This is where the concept of correlation comes into play, and particularly, the choice between Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients becomes pivotal.
The Pearson correlation coefficient is the go-to metric when both variables under consideration follow a normal distribution, assuming there’s a linear relationship between them. Conversely, the Spearman correlation coefficient doesn’t hinge on the normality of the data and offers a more flexible approach, effectively capturing monotonic relationships even when distributions are non-normal.
Choosing the right correlation coefficient is not just a matter of mathematical preference; it can significantly impact the conclusions we draw from our data. In this blog, we’ll dive into the intricacies of both the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients, demystify their differences, and equip you with the knowledge to select the right one for your data.
Correlation is a statistical measure that describes the extent to which two variables change together. It is a crucial concept in data science, as it helps in understanding and quantifying the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. For data scientists, correlation is foundational for feature selection, risk assessment, hypothesis testing, and predictive modeling. A thorough understanding of correlation is essential in discerning which variables in large datasets have the potential to provide insights or predictive power when algorithms are applied.
The importance of correlation in the realm of data science cannot be overstated. As data scientists, when we understand the correlation between variables, we can make informed decisions about which variables may influence one another and how they can be harnessed in statistical modeling strategies. This understanding can also help in simplifying machine learning / statistical models by identifying and removing redundant variables, thereby improving computational efficiency and model interpretability.
However, it is imperative to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Just because two variables display a strong correlation, it doesn’t mean that one variable causes the other to occur. They may be influenced by a third variable, or the observed correlation could be coincidental. Data scientists must be cautious not to leap to conclusions about cause and effect solely based on correlation metrics. Rigorous experimental design and analysis are necessary to establish causative links.
The Pearson correlation coefficient, often symbolized as r, is a measure that quantifies the linear relationship between two continuous variables. It is the most widely used correlation statistic to assess the degree of the relationship between linearly related variables.
The Pearson coefficient is calculated as the covariance of the two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations. The formula is expressed as:
r = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (X_i – \bar{X})(Y_i – \bar{Y})}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (X_i – \bar{X})^2 \sum_{i=1}^{n} (Y_i – \bar{Y})^2}}
where:
The Pearson correlation coefficient has several key characteristics:
For the Pearson correlation coefficient to be valid, certain assumptions must be met:
The above can also be taken as criteria that we can use to decide whether to use Pearson correlation coefficient.
The Spearman correlation coefficient, denoted as ρ or sometimes as [latex]r_s[/latex], is a non-parametric measure of rank correlation. It is “non-parametric” because it doesn’t make any assumptions about the probability distribution of the variables (i.e., they do not need to follow a normal distribution). Instead of calculating the correlation using raw data, it operates on the ranks of the data. “Rank correlation” implies that the correlation is determined by comparing the ranks of the data points, rather than their actual values. Each value is replaced by its rank in the dataset when calculating Spearman’s correlation. The Spearman correlation coefficient assesses how well the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic function, whether linear or not.
Example of Rank Correlation
Suppose we are interested in the relationship between the time spent studying for an exam (in hours) and the marks obtained (out of 100). We have data from five students as follows:
Student | Hours Studied (X) | Marks Obtained (Y) |
---|---|---|
A | 1 | 50 |
B | 4 | 70 |
C | 3 | 60 |
D | 5 | 80 |
E | 2 | 55 |
To calculate the Spearman rank correlation, we would first rank each set of data (hours studied and marks obtained) from lowest to highest.
Student | Hours Studied (X) | Rank RX | Marks Obtained (Y) | Rank RY |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1 | 1 | 50 | 1 |
B | 4 | 4 | 70 | 4 |
C | 3 | 3 | 60 | 3 |
D | 5 | 5 | 80 | 5 |
E | 2 | 2 | 55 | 2 |
We then calculate the Spearman correlation using these ranks. The idea is that if there is a perfect monotonic relationship, the ranks would match perfectly (i.e., the highest number of hours studied would correspond to the highest marks obtained, and so on). If there is no relationship, the ranks would not correspond at all.
Spearman correlation coefficient is primarily used for ordinal data:
Ordinal data represent categories with a meaningful order, but the intervals between the categories are not necessarily equal or known. Here’s an example of ordinal data where the Spearman correlation coefficient would be appropriate:
A company might conduct a survey to assess customer satisfaction with its services. The survey contains two questions where customers rate the following on a scale from 1 to 5:
Here, the data are ordinal. Each number represents a category that is ranked relative to the others, but the difference in satisfaction between “Very Unsatisfied” and “Unsatisfied” may not be the same as the difference between “Neutral” and “Satisfied.”
The company is interested in understanding whether there is a relationship between customer satisfaction and their likelihood of recommending the service. In this case, a Spearman correlation coefficient can be used to assess how well the rankings of customer satisfaction correlate with the rankings of their likelihood to recommend.
The Spearman coefficient is suitable here because it doesn’t assume equal intervals between ranks and is not influenced by the non-linear spacing between the ordinal categories. It simply assesses whether customers who are more satisfied are also more likely to recommend the service (and vice versa), based on the rank order of their responses. If customers who are more satisfied also tend to be more likely to recommend the service, this would result in a high positive Spearman correlation, indicating a strong monotonic relationship.
Unlike Pearson’s r, which assesses linear relationships and relies on parametric assumptions, the Spearman correlation evaluates the monotonic relationship between two continuous or ordinal variables. The formula for Spearman’s ρ is:
\rho = 1 – \frac{6 \sum d_i^2}{n(n^2 – 1)}
where:
The Spearman correlation shares some characteristics with the Pearson correlation:
Spearman correlation makes fewer assumptions than Pearson’s:
The above can also be taken as criteria that we can use to decide whether to use Spearman correlation coefficient.
The Spearman correlation coefficient also has its limitations:
When diving into the realm of data analysis, it becomes crucial to understand the differences between Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients, as each serves different purposes and is appropriate under varying circumstances.
Similarities between Pearson and Spearman Both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients aim to measure the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. They are bounded by the same limits, producing a value between -1 and +1, where +1 indicates a perfect positive relationship, -1 indicates a perfect negative relationship, and 0 suggests no correlation. Additionally, both are symmetric, meaning the correlation from X to Y is the same as from Y to X.
Key Differences and When Each Should Be Applied
The Pearson correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the linear relationship between two variables. It ranges from -1 to 1, with -1 indicating a perfect negative linear relationship, 0 indicating no linear relationship, and 1 indicating a perfect positive linear relationship.
To represent the Pearson correlation coefficient with a plot, we typically create a scatter plot of the two variables and add the line of best fit to visualize the linear relationship. The slope of the line and how closely the points cluster around the line give a visual indication of the strength and direction of the linear relationship. The following is the plot:
Here’s the scatter plot with a line of best fit for a dataset with a positive linear relationship. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) is annotated on the plot, indicating the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the x and y variables.
The line of best fit gives a visual representation of this relationship, and the scatter of points around the line indicates how closely they follow a linear pattern. The closer the Pearson coefficient is to 1, the stronger the positive linear relationship between the variables.
The Spearman correlation coefficient is used to represent relationship between the variables in the non-normal monotonic dataset. The following plots represent the non-normal monotonic dataset with or without outliers.
In the visualizations:
Selecting the appropriate method (Spearman vs Pearson) to measure correlation requires careful consideration of various aspects of the data.
Determining the Scale of Measurement in Your Data Firstly, it’s essential to identify the scale of measurement. Pearson’s correlation is suitable for data measured on an interval or ratio scale—where the intervals between data points are equal. Examples include temperature in Celsius or revenue in dollars. Spearman’s correlation is apt for ordinal data or interval/ratio data that do not meet the normality assumption. An example of ordinal data could be a rating scale from 1 to 5, as discussed previously.
Assessing the Relationship Between Variables The nature of the relationship between variables is another critical factor. If the relationship is linear, meaning that the change in one variable is proportionally associated with a change in another, Pearson’s correlation should be used. If the relationship is monotonic, where the variables tend to move in the same direction but not necessarily at a constant rate, Spearman’s correlation is more appropriate.
Dealing with Outliers and Non-normal Distributions Outliers can significantly impact the results of a Pearson correlation analysis. If your data contains outliers or is not normally distributed, Spearman’s correlation, which uses ranks rather than actual values, can provide a more accurate measure of the relationship.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach when choosing between Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Each dataset should be evaluated on its own merits, and the choice should be justified based on the characteristics of the data and the specific research questions posed.
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved to include more sophisticated and capable agents,…
Adaptive learning helps in tailoring learning experiences to fit the unique needs of each student.…
With the increasing demand for more powerful machine learning (ML) systems that can handle diverse…
Anxiety is a common mental health condition that affects millions of people around the world.…
In machine learning, confounder features or variables can significantly affect the accuracy and validity of…
Last updated: 26 Sept, 2024 Credit card fraud detection is a major concern for credit…