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

Area of Science:

• Educational Psychology
• Quantitative Research Methods

Background:

• Assessing associations between conceptual constructs is fundamental in educational and psychological research.
• Researchers utilize various statistical methods to determine correlations between variables, but accuracy concerns persist.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the accuracy of correlation results obtained from different analytical methods.
• To compare three common methods: bivariate correlation, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM).

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of correlation results derived from bivariate correlation, CFA, and ESEM.
• Focus on how assumptions of item independence impact correlation estimates.

Main Results:

• Methods assuming item independence (bivariate correlation, CFA) yield substantially inflated factor correlations.
• Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), which relaxes the independence assumption, provides uninflated, more accurate correlations.
• Inflated correlations in CFA and bivariate correlation hinder the attainment of discriminant validity.

Conclusions:

• The choice of correlation analysis method significantly affects research findings.
• Researchers should be aware that bivariate correlation and CFA can produce biased and overly large correlation estimates.
• ESEM is recommended for more accurate construct correlation assessment and to ensure discriminant validity.