Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am currently facing problems dealing with lots of individual simple correlations (28 individual DTI connections strengths, individual behavioural scores on 31 time points). That would be 28x31 individual correlations. Referring to a previous discussion on that, I just want to make sure that I understood correctly and am looking forward for your short answers whether this way would be fine:

  1. Individual correlations 28x31 are computed, giving R and p values (original data).
  2. Subjects are shuffled on 1 side (e.g. for all 28 connections, pseudosample), all correlations are computed again, giving a new 28x31x5000 matrix with R and p-val. 2a. This is done 5000x.
  3. The number R perm > R obs (N) is collected for each correlation (hence max. 5000).
  4. Emperical p val is computed as N/5000 for each correlation.
  5. A common threshold of p-val of e.g. 0.05 is applied to find significant correlations based on all individual 28x31 p-vals.

My additional questions would be:

A. What about negative R? What about the case when abs(R) would be larger in perm. than in original?
B. How to adress R perm -0.05 and R original -0.6, hence stronger negative correlation? At this stage, I only count the # of Rorig > Rperm, should I also count abs(Rorig> abs (Rperm)?

I am still a bit confused and unsure whether I would report correct statistics.

share|improve this question

1 Answer

If you have negative correlations than logically you should change the sign $>$ to $<$ on step 3 for this particular comparison. To this end use $\left|\frac{R_{\text{perm}}}{R_{\text{obs}}}\right|>1$ rule in step 3.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.