How Accurate Is Your Correlation? Different Methods Derive Different Results and Different Interpretations

Assessing the association between conceptual constructs are at the heart of quantitative research in educational and psychological research. Researchers apply different methods to the data to obtain results about the correlation between a set of variables. However, the question remains, how accurate are the results of the correlation obtained from these methods? Although various considerations should be taken to ensure accurate results, we focus on the types of analysis researchers apply to the data and discuss three methods most researchers use to obtain results about correlation. Particularly, we show how correlation results in bivariate correlation, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) differ substantially in size. We observe that methods that assume independence of the items often generate inflated factor correlations whereas methods that relax this assumption present uninflated, thus more accurate correlations. Because factor correlations are inflated in bivariate correlation and CFA, the discriminant validity of the constructs is often unattainable. In these methods, the size of the correlation can be very large and biased. We discuss the reasons for this variation and suggest the type of correlation that researchers should select and report.

Automated summary

This excerpt discusses the assessment of association between conceptual constructs in quantitative research in education and psychology. It highlights the variations in methods used by researchers to analyze data and obtain correlation results. It emphasizes the importance of selecting the appropriate method to ensure accurate results.