4
$\begingroup$

According to the wikipedia article the point-biserial correlation is just Pearson correlation where one variable is continuous but the other is dichotomous (e.g. Yes/No, Male/Female). However the article later introduces rank-biserial correlation, which is a correlation measure between a dichotomous variable and a ordinal/ranked variable:

$r_{rb}=2(M_1-M_0)/n$

where $M_1$ and $M_0$ are the mean ranks in the continuous/ordinal variable, in groups "1" and "0", respectively, and $n=n_1+n_0$ is the total sample size.

What is the difference? Is rank-biserial correlation related to Pearson correlation?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This Q&A stats.stackexchange.com/questions/105542/… discusses the relationship between point-biserial and Pearson so it seems unlikely that what you suggest holds. Note the close relationship between rank-biserial and Mann Whitney U as stated in the article you cite. $\endgroup$ – mdewey Mar 12 '17 at 10:02
2
$\begingroup$

The Wikipedia formula of "rank-biserial correlation" that you show was introduced by Glass (1966) and it is not equivalent to usual Pearson $r$ when the latter is computed on ranks data (that is, $r$ which actually will be Spearman's $rho$).

Let define $Y$ to be the quantitative variable already turned into ranks; and $X$ be the dichotomous variable with groups coded 1 and 0 (total sample size $n=n_1+n_0$).

Knowing the formula of Pearson $r$ and observing the following equivalencies of our situation on ranks vs 1-0 dichotomy,

$\sum XY= \sum Y_{x=1}=R_1$ (Sum of ranks in group coded 1),

$\sum X = \sum X^2 = n_1$,

$\sum Y = n(n+1)/2$,

$\sum Y^2 = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6$,

substitute, and get Pearson $r$ (= Spearman $rho$) formula looking as:

$r= \frac{2R_1-n_1(n+1)}{\sqrt{n_1n_0(n^2-1)/3}}$.

Now do substitutions into Glass' "rank-biserial correlation", to obtain:

$r_{rb}= \frac{2R_1-n_1(n+1)}{n_1n_0}$.

You can see that their denominators are different. So, Glass's $r_{rb}$ correlation isn't true Pearson/Spearman correlation. (Point-biserial correlation is true Pearson correlation.)

I haven't read Glass' original paper or its reviews and hesitate to say what can be the reason behind the correlation and is there any advantage of it over the Pearson/Spearman correlation.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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