QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY

Correlation and the Coefficient of Determination

Daniel J. Ozer
Boston University

It is common practice in psychological statistics to use the square of the correlation

as a coefficient of determination or a percentage measure of variance accounted
for. This use of the correlation coefficient requires the adoption of a particular
model and attendant assumptions. In a variety of circumstances where the square
of the correlation coefficient is used, the required assumptions are not tenable.
An alternative, less well-known interpretation of the correlation coefficient is
described. In this model, the absolute value of the correlation provides a coefficient
of determination. Similarities and differences between these two models are
described, and conditions for the appropriate use of each model are discussed.
The correlation coefficient and not the correlation squared is recommended for
use as an effect size indicator, because evaluating effect size in terms of variance
accounted for may lead to interpretations that grossly underestimate the magnitude
of a relation.

Pearson coefficients of correlation and other
derivative statistics (e.g., phi, point-biserial
correlations) are used with considerable fre-
quency in the analysis of psychological data.
One reason for computing these statistics is
to determine the size or magnitude of the
relation between two variables. When used
for this purpose, it is common to use the
square of the correlation coefficient as an
index of the size of the relation. This index,
referred to by Guilford (1936) as the coeffi-
cient of determination, is interpreted as the
percentage of variance in one variable that is
predicted or explained by the other. Amount
of explained variance is one way of expressing
the degree to which some relation or phe-
nomenon is present—what Cohen (1969) re-
fers to as effect size. Effect size estimation is
an important concern, providing a basis for
evaluating the effectiveness of an experimental
treatment or perhaps even the success of a
basic research program.
Although measures of explained variance
appear to be intuitively meaningful measures
The author thanks David Ems, Ralph D'Agostino,
Kevin Lanning, Howard Terry, and two anonymous
reviewers for their comments on the manuscript.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel J. Ozer,
Department of Psychology, Boston University, 64 Cum-
mington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215.
Psychological Bulletin, 1985, Vol. 97, No, 2, 307-315
Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, toe, 0033-2909/85/$00,75
of effect size, their interpretation is at times
difficult. O'Grady (1982) described several
problems associated with measures of ex-
plained variance, noting that measurement
error, features of the research design, and the
multiplicity of behavioral causes may limit
the magnitude of such statistics. Sechrest and
Yeaton (1981, 1982) provided a detailed ex-
amination of effect size estimation issues.
They reviewed several methods of estimating
the amount of explained variance and dem-
onstrated how these procedures yield esti-
mates that are unlikely to be generalizable to
situations that differ from the initial research
design and measurement context.
One may also question whether the amount
of variance accounted for is always an appro-
priate metric for assessing effect size. D'An-
drade and Dart (1983) criticized the routine
and common use of r2 as a measure of degree
of association. Their arguments were based
in part upon a rejection of the variance as
an appropriate measure of variation in a set
of scores. Instead of variance, which is based
upon the sum of squared deviations from the
mean, D'Andrade and Dart suggested that
the sum of absolute deviations from the mean
is a better measure of variation. They then
demonstrated that r, not r2, provides a close
fit to the proportion of variation accounted

307
308 DANIEL J. OZER
for. D'Andrade and Dart concluded that r is
the more appropriate measure of association.
In this article, I demonstrate that D'An-
drade and Dart's conclusion does not require
rejecting the variance as a measure of varia-
tion. I describe instead a second model for
interpreting correlation. The purpose of this
article is to provide a simple presentation of
two models for interpreting the correlation
coefficient in terms of degree of determination
of one variable by another. In one, r2 provides
a coefficient of determination; in the other,
the absolute value of r provides a coefficient
of determination. Appropriate applications
of each of these models are discussed.
Certain inappropriate applications of r2 as
a coefficient of determination are already
recognized in some specialized contexts. For
example, neither reliability coefficients (e.g.,
correlations between parallel tests) nor genetic
correlations (e.g., correlations between iden-
tical twins reared apart) are squared prior to
interpreting their size. In these two instances,
a different model, with different assumptions,
is being used. Although virtually no assump-
tions need to be satisfied to compute a cor-
relation coefficient (Binder, 1959), particular
interpretations of the correlation require par-
ticular assumptions. For example, a correla-
tion coefficient permits the prediction of a
score on one standardized variable from an-
other, but this prediction will be meaningful
only if the relation between the two variables
is approximately linear. What is not generally
recognized is that interpreting r2 as a coeffi-
cient of determination also requires certain
assumptions and the acceptance of a partic-
ular model.
Models for Interpreting Correlation
Coefficients
One common way of describing a correla-
tion between two variables, x and y, is to
suggest an analogy with the concept of inter-
section in set theory. This analogy leads to
the production of a Venn diagram as shown
in Figure I. 1 The region of intersection is
identified as r2, because of the identity: r2 =
<ry2/ffy2. This standard interpretation of cor-
relation is developed in this manner in a
number of widely respected texts (e.g., Cohen
& Cohen, 1975; Kerlinger, 1973).
Figure 1. Standard interpretation of r^ = .50.
A very few sources (Cattell, 1957; Tryon,
1929; Wiggins, 1973) have presented a com-
parable yet different interpretation, as de-
picted in Figure 2. In this alternative inter-
pretation, Txy = .5 has three possible meanings:
x is a part of y such that x comprises 25%
of y (as in View A); y is a part of x such that
y comprises 25% of x (as in View B); or that
some portion of both x and y is common to
both x and y, and this portion comprises
50% of both x and y (as in View C).
Inspection of Figure 1 and View C of
Figure 2 suggests a fundamental incompati-
bility between the standard and alternative
interpretations of correlation. Is the region of
intersection or amount of determination of y
by x 25% or 50%? At issue here is not
whether the equality r2 = ffy2/ay2 is always
true. This equality is a definitional necessity.
The question is whether or not this equality
always permits an interpretation of r2 as a
coefficient of determination or as defining
the region of intersection.
Correlation and Common Elements
The issues pertaining to whether r or r2
provides a coefficient of determination are
most simply viewed through the common
elements interpretation of correlation (Guil-
ford, 1936, pp. 364-366). The actual appli-
cation of the common elements interpretation
is appropriate only in circumstances rare in
psychology: Each variable must be viewed as
an unweighted sum of elements that are
either present or absent. In such a circum-
1
This Venn diagram and others to follow are used for
their heuristic value for representing correlation—they
do not provide a literal model.
 CORRELATION AND DETERMINATION 309

Figure 2. Alternative interpretation of r^ = .50.

stance, the correlation coefficient may be determination of variable y by variable x is

expressed as the ratio of number of elements common to
x and y to the total number of elements in
(1) y. nc/(nc + ny). Likewise, the percent deter-
mination of x by y is nc/(nc + nx).
where nx is the number of elements present If ny = 0, so that all the elements in y are
included in x, then
in variable x but absent in variable y, ny is
the number of elements present in variable y
but absent in variable x; and nc is the number (2)
of elements present in both variables x and
y (the common elements). which reduces to r^2 = nc/(nx + nc). When
One example where this formula may be x includes all the elements of y, r2 provides
properly invoked is in evaluating the corre- the percent determination of x by y. However,
lation between two scales containing one or in this instance, the determination of y by
more identical items scored in the same x is «c/(0 + «c) = 1. At least under the
direction. In this instance, the expected cor- common elements interpretation of correla-
relation between the scales will not be zero. tion, the use of r2 as a coeffiient of determi-
The common elements formula allows one nation of y by x implies that the degree of
to determine the correlation between the determination of x by y is unity.
scales that can be expected due to item The situation is different if nx = ny:
overlap.
The common elements interpretation pro- (3)
vides a simple formalization of correlation: nc
the ratio of the number of common elements and
in variables x and y to the geometric mean
of the total number of elements in jc and y.
The common elements nomenclature also (4)
allows a simple formalization of the coefficient
of determination as a percentage. The percent If nx = ny, r and not r 2 is the percent of
310 DANIEL J. OZER

determination of either variable through their

shared elements. Jensen (1971) used the com-
mon elements algebra in this way to demon-
strate why correlations between relatives pro-
vide direct estimates of the proportion of
common variance.2
Application of the common elements in-
terpretation leads to several observations
about the coefficient of determination, denned
as the ratio of common to total elements:
1. r2 is the percent of determination of y Figure 3. Tryon's (1929) partitioning of two variables.
by x if and only if all elements of x are
included in y. into two independent portions: a part com-
2. r is the percent of determination of y mon to both x and y (namely c) and residual
by x if and only if x and y have an equal portions a and b. Tryon first provided a proof
number of elements. that rby + rcy2 and r^2 + r are both equal
3. Algebraic manipulation of Equation 1 to 1. He then noted that rcy = rxy.a, where
reveals that r is equal to the geometric mean Txy.a is the partial correlation between x and
of the two coefficients of determination (y y with a removed, so rxy.a2 + rby 2 =
by x and x by y): Expanding the partial correlation term,

The result expressed in Point 2 is only and because ray = 0,

rarely mentioned in discussions of the prop-
erties of coefficients of correlation. It is at 2 _
(7)
odds with standard definitions of the coeffi-
cient of determination as the ratio of predicted
variance to total variance. Because the com- 'xy
mon elements interpretation is rarely appro- (8)
priate in most contexts where the correlation
coefficient is applied, it may be useful to Because r^2 + rcx2 = 1, r^ = 1 —
discover if the conclusions about the coeffi- Equation 8, by substitution, becomes
cient of determination previously derived can j. » 2 _ i
be generated without reference to the common (9)
elements interpretation of correlation. That is, r^lra is the percent of y determined
by x through c, and rby2 is the percent of y
Determination and Suppression determined by residual factors. Thus, r^,2
will be the percent determination of y by x
Tryon (1929) provided an interpretation of if and only if rc2 = 1, when c is x, as in
the correlation coefficient entirely consistent Figure 2, View A (i.e., when the residual area
with the conclusions noted previously. It is of x, namely a, is null).
of some historical interest to note that the Because 1 - r^2 = r^2, Equation 9 becomes
basis of Tryon's derivations lies in the logic
of suppression as it is conceived of in regres-
sion analysis. Although the first elucidation
of suppression is generally credited to Horst's 2
Jensen's additional assertion that the proportion of
(1941) contribution, Tryon's work clearly in- common variance in identical twins reared apart provides
dicates an earlier anticipation of the phenom- a heritability coefficient has been criticized by Miller and
enon. Levine (1973). These authors noted that this claim for
equivalence requires several additional assumptions, such
Tryon considered a situation depicted in as no genotype-environment covariance and uncorrelated
Figure 3. Variables x and y are each divided environments among twin pairs.
 CORRELATION AND DETERMINATION 311

interpretation leads to a definition of the

(10)
coefficient of determination as r2, due to the
'ex
equality r = ay2/a2. The logic of an alter-
2

(the determination of y by x through c), so native interpretation has been elaborated us-
fxv2 = T^rJ- and ing the common elements interpretation of
correlation and Tryon's anticipation of the
concept of suppression. In View A and View
This last result is revealing; it parallels B of Figure 2, both the standard and alter-
results obtained in the common elements native accounts agree that r2 provides the
interpretation. The correlation between two coefficient of determination. But what of the
variables is the geometric mean of the two situation depicted in Figure 1, Figure 2 (View
coefficients of determination, as shown in C), and Figure 3? Is the region of overlap of
Equations 5 and 1 1 . If Regions A and B in x and y equal to r or r2? This area of overlap,
Figure 3 are equal (i.e., if the variances of x Region C in Figure 3, is the covariance of x
and y are equal), then r^ = rcy2 = rxy. As in' and y. Regions A, B, and C each have been
the common elements interpretation, if x and defined as independent of one another, so
y are the same size, then r and not r 2 provides
the coefficient of determination. This is ap- and a2 = aa +
parent from Equation 1 1 : If r^2 - rcy2, then

In Tryon's treatment of determination, if The covariance of x and y is then

one is interested in the determination of y
by x, the portion of x unrelated to y (Region
A in Figure 3) is treated as a suppressor
variable. The magnitude of this residual area
of x clearly affects the magnitude of rxy, but
does not affect the coefficient of determination
of y by x. From Equation 1 1 one can see
that Txy = rcjcy. This result is basic to factor
analysis, where the correlation between two
variables is the sum of the products of cor-
responding factor pattern coefficients, which
are the correlations between the variables and
the factors. In the two-variable case, there is
but one common factor, so the correlation
between x and y is the product previously
shown.
This same logic provides the reason for
not squaring reliability coefficients. In classical
test theory, if x and y are parallel tests, then
(12)
ff
Oxy ~ ab (13)
and because aab = = 0,
= (14)
The variance of Region C in Figure 3 is the
covariance of x and y. If scores are standard-
ized, then the area of Region C must be equal
to r and not r2. If the variances of x and y
are equal, then r is the percent of determi-
nation of y by x. But even if the x and y
variances are unequal, there is still a simple
percentage interpretation for r. The absolute
value of the correlation coefficient expresses
the percent of the maximum possible covari-
ance that is actually obtained. Because
„ __ // \ / I C\

the correlation between true scores and tests

x and y must be equal (rxt = ry,\ and the it is clear that when a correlation is unity the
covariance is equal to the product of standard
product of these correlations is equal to the
correlation between x and y: rxy = rxtryt. deviations. The correlation is then the ratio
of the obtained to maximum possible covari-
Because rxt = r^, then r^ = rxt2. The corre-
ance.
lation between parallel tests is the percent of
true score variance. Jensen (1980, Note 6, pp. 252-256) pro-
vided an alternative proof of this result. His
Determination: Predicted Variance method clarified the percentage interpreta-
or Covariance? tions of both r and r2. The percent of variance
in one variable that can be predicted from a
Two interpretations of correlation were second variable is r2. The percent of variance
presented in Figures 1 and 2. The standard common to two variables is r.
312 DANIEL J. OZER
On Using r and r2
The preceding discussion suggested that
without a theoretical or conceptual basis for
specifying a relation between x and y, nothing
can be asserted about the degree of determi-
nation. It is often reasonable to assume some-
thing about this relation. Tryon (1929) offered
as an example the relation between speed
and accuracy on a task. One might specify
that the total time is the sum of time spent
making incorrect choices plus the time spent
making correct choices. In this instance, a
measure of accuracy provides an estimate of
time spent making correct choices and may
be viewed as a portion of what is measured
by speed. The appropriate estimate of the
percent determination of speed by accuracy
through their common variance is r2. When-
ever variance decomposition of the dependent
variable is the goal of the analysis, r2 provides
the coefficient of determination, with one
statistical caveat: The predictor variable
should first be corrected for attenuation. This
is required by the model, which assumes that
all of the variance in the predictor variable
is included in the criterion variable. By defi-
nition, the error variance in the predictor is
not so included. Whenever r2 is used as the
coefficient of determination, failure to correct
the predictor variable for attenuation due to
unreliability is ipso facto a misspecification
of the model. No such imperative applies on
the criterion side—the model is neutral such
that one may choose to partition either total
variance of the criterion (and correct the
correlation for attenuation on only the pre-
dictor side) or only the reliable criterion
variance (by correcting for attenuation on
both sides).
Variance decomposition conforms to the
standard model described earlier where r2 is
the coefficient of determination. Variance
partitioning as described here requires one to
invoke a model that identifies the predictor
or independent variable as a fully contained
part of a larger, more inclusive, dependent or
criterion variable. But this model is not always
appropriate. There are a variety of other uses
of correlation, and in many the absolute
value of r should be interpreted as the coef-
ficient of determination. Two other uses of
correlation are considered.
A frequent application of the correlation
coefficient is to evaluate the relation between
two measures. In this kind of task, the use
of r2 as a coefficient of determination has
historically been common. This type of usage
is incorrect, because the underlying model
fails to conform to the conditions noted
previously.
Mischel's (1968) characterization of Hart-
shorne and May's research provides a well-
known case. In this data, cheating by copying
from an answer key correlated with cheating
by adding on scores on a speed test at .292
(Mischel, 1968, p. 24). Mischel viewed this
coefficient as a typical cross-situational con-
sistency coefficient obtained in personality
research. In Mischel's description, such a
coefficient "accounts for less than 10% of the
relevant variance" (1968, p. 38). The preced-
ing discussion should make it clear that Mis-
chel misspecified the trait model. A trait
model does not suggest that copying is a part
of (or a cause of) adding on scores, nor does
it assert the reverse. Most trait models suggest
that some latent variable underlies scores on
both measures; and that the latent variable
is responsible for the covariance between the
measured variables. In this model, the cor-
relation coefficient itself provides the appro-
priate coefficient of determination: 29.2% of
the variance in both copying and adding on
scores is held in common. If other sources of
covariation such as method variance can be
ruled out, one may conclude that a latent
variable—cheating—accounts for nearly 30%
of the variance in these two measured vari-
ables. This is not determination of one vari-
able by another, but determination of mea-
sured variables by a latent variable.
This interpretation requires that one be
indifferent to the relative variances of the two
measures. One assumes that the variances
either are in fact equal, or that no information
of interest is carried by the differences in
variance. Whenever one uses a correlational
statistic a tacit indifference to variance has
already become influential. Correlation coef-
ficients are insensitive to the relative sizes of
the variances of the measures being correlated.
Use of a correlation coefficient generally im-
plies that differences in the variances of the
variables are of little concern. If this view is
unwarranted, then the correlation coefficient
 CORRELATION AND DETERMINATION
is virtually uninformative to begin with, and
regression coefficients, which are sensitive to
differences in variance, should be used (see
Pedhazur, 1982, p. 42, for a more detailed
treatment of this issue).
Many applications of correlation coeffi-
cients fit either the variance decomposition
or common variance models, where r2 and r,
respectively, furnish appropriate coefficients
of determination. Correlational statistics are
also used as measures of magnitude of exper-
imental effect. Here one wishes to determine
the extent to which the dependent variable is
a function of some independent variable.
This type of problem is not a good fit with
either the variance partitioning or common
variance approaches. The independent vari-
able is generally not viewed as a portion of
the dependent variable, nor are both depen-
dent and independent variables typically con-
ceived of as some function of a third unmea-
sured variable.
Rosenthal and Rubin (1979, 1982) offered
convincing examples demonstrating the ad-
vantage of using the correlation metric as a
gauge of effect size in this situation. They
offered examples such as that shown in Table
1. In the data shown in Table 1, the phi
coefficient is .30. This figure corresponds to
the difference in survival rate as a result of
treatment. This relation between phi and
survival rate improvement will obtain exactly
whenever the marginal distributions and en-
tries of the 2 X 2 table are symmetric and
equal (as in Table 1), and is moderately
robust with respect to minor disturbances in
this symmetry. As Rosenthal and Rubin
pointed out, thinking of this effect as an
example of accounting for 9% of the variance
may lead to a gross underestimation of treat-
ment effectiveness. The correlation coefficient
(phi in this case) provides a directly inter-
pretable reflection of treatment effect: There
is an increase of 30% in the survival rate.
Another way to view correlation in the
context of 2 X 2 contingency tables parallels
Levy's (1967) conception of percent of mis-
classified cases. In a symmetric 2 X 2 contin-
gency table, the percent misclassified is (1 -
r^/2 (e.g., in Table 1, 70 of 200 cases or 35%
are misclassified and (1 — r^J/2 = .35). This
formula provides a close estimate of percent
misclassified even when the dependent vari-
313
Table 1
Distribution of Cases in Hypothetical
Treatment Outcome Study
Treatment outcome
Condition Survival Death
Treatment 65 35
No treatment 35 65
able is continuous. For the two-variable large
and equal sample case, Levy (1967) showed
that the percent misclassified by the point-
biserial correlation (rpb) is equal to the one-
tail probability value of z, where
The probability value associated with z is the
percent misclassified, P(m). The correspon-
dence between (1 — rpb)/2 and P(m) can be
seen in Table 2. For both dichotomous and
continuous variables, the correlation (phi,
point-biserial), and not the correlation
squared, provides a meaningful effect size
indicator, being directly related to the percent
misclassified. There is no such simple inter-
pretable linkage between r2 and P(m), so that
assessing effect size through the ratio of pre-
dicted to total variance offers little in com-
parison.
Conclusion
The size of a relation between two variables
is often a pertinent concern, but this is just
one aspect of the larger issue of the impor-
tance of a relation. O'Grady (1982) indicated
that a magnitude of an effect must be evalu-
ated in a theoretical context. One must com-
pare the magnitude of an obtained relation
to what may be expected, taking into account
relevant theory, the methods used, and the
measurement operations. But it is not only
the interpretation of an effect size that is
partially theory-dependent; the actual esti-
mation of a coefficient of determination re-
quires theory as well. In this article, two
simple theoretical models for the two variable
case have been considered.3
3
In cases where the assumptions of both of these
models are unacceptable, other methods of estimating a
314 DANIEL J. OZER

Table 2 literature and found that the effect sizes,

Comparison of Two Misclassification Indexes assessed correlationally, were about .40. They
for Selected r^ Values too suggested aggregation as a means of im-
fob P(m) (1 - proving predictive power. Perhaps a more
sanguine view can be defended. One of the
.00 .50 .50 studies Funder and Ozer considered was by
.10 .46 .45 Darley and Latane (1968), which examined
.20 .42 .40 bystander intervention as a function of num-
.30 .38 .35
.40 .33 .30 ber of onlookers. The point-biserial correla-
.50 .28 .25 tion between helping and number of onlookers
.60 .23 .20 was —.38. Should one be distressed because
.70 .16 .15 only about 15% of the variance in helping is
.80 .09 .10
.90 .02 .05 explained or impressed that a simple principle
1.00 .00 .00 concerning diffusion of responsibility correctly
classifies the behavior of about 70% of the
persons?

The basic results described here have been

readily available since Tryon's (1929) expo-
sition, but there is little acknowledgement of
this interpretation of correlation in either
current psychological statistics textbooks or
the research literature. Despite widespread
practice, squaring the correlation coefficient
to yield a percent of variance accounted for
statistic is often unjustified by an underlying
model. When this kind of coefficient of de-
termination is informally interpreted as a
percentage measure of effect size, it is poten-
tially misleading. Although r2 does have utility
in variance partitioning, other applications
are usually inappropriate. By contrast, the
correlation coefficient is a directly interpret-
able effect size indicator and may in circum-
scribed conditions be used as a coefficient of
determination.
There appears to be a growing dissatisfac-
tion with the magnitude of effects obtained
in various domains of psychological investi-
gation. This has led some to advocate a
strategy of aggregation (e.g., Epstein, 1979;
Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983). Even
some important effects are not large when
evaluated by traditional standards. Funder
and Ozer (1983) selected several undoubtedly
important results from the social psychology
coefficient of determination are required. In such cases,
the value of the coefficient of determination will always
be between r2 and r (see Tryon, 1929, for the applicable
proof), but more precise estimation requires the use of
either causal modeling procedures or the method of
triads as Tryon proposed.
References
Binder, A. (1959). Consideration of the place of assump-
tions in correlational analysis. American Psychologist,
14, 504-510.
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure
and measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World
Book.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the be-
havioral sciences. New \brk: Academic Press.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regres-
sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
D'Andrade, R. G., & Dart, J. (1983). The interpretation
ofr versus r2. Unpublished manuscript.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention
in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior. I: On
predicting most of the people much of the time.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-
1126.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (1983). Behavior as a
function of the situation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 107-112.
Guilford, J. P. (1936). Psychometric methods. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Horst, P. (1941). The prediction of personal adjustment.
New York: Social Science Research Council.
Jensen, A. R. (1971). Note on why genetic correlations
are not squared. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 223-224.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New \brk:
Free Press.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Levy, P. (1967). Substantive significance of significant
differences between two groups. Psychological Bulletin,
67, 37-40.
Miller, J. K., & Levine, D. (1973). Correlation between
genetically matched groups versus reliability theory: A
reply to Jensen. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 142-144.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New
York: Wiley.
 CORRELATION AND DETERMINATION 315

O'Grady, K. E. (1982). Measures of explained variance:
Cautions and limitations. Psychological Bulletin, 92,
766-777.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral
research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Win-
ston.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, 0. B. (1979). A note on percent
variance explained as a measure of the importance of
effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 395-
396.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general
purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169.
Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983).
Behavioral development and construct validity: The
principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94,
18-38.
Sechrest, L., & Yeaton, W. J. (1981). Estimating magni-
tudes of experimental effects. JSAS Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 11. (Ms. No. 2355)
Sechrest, L., & Yeaton, W. J. (1982). Magnitudes of
experimental effects in social science research. Evalu-
ation Review, 6, 579-600.
Tryon, R. C. (1929). The interpretation of the correlation
coefficient. Psychological Review, 36, 419-445.
Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles
of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Received October 11, 1983
Revision received June 7, 1984

Editorial Consultants for This Issue:

Quantitative Methods in Psychology

James J. Algina Bradley Efron Keith E. Muller

Duane F. Alwin Donald L. Fisher Gottfried E. Noether
James C. Anderson John Gaito Keven E. O'Grady
Mark L. Appelbaum Donald Guthrie Gordon F. Pitz
Douglas G. Bonnett Ronald K. Hambleton Robert Rosenthal
Michael J. Burke Richard J. Harris Donald B. Rubin
James E. Carlson James Jaccard Patrick E. Shrout
James Carlson Arthur R. Jensen Linda S. Siegel
Timothy F. Champney Leonard Katz John H. Skillings
James T. Chen Gary D. Koch Kikumi Tatsuoka
James Chumbley James Alan Kulik Robert Tibshirani
Albert T. Corbett James E. Laughlin Neil H. Timm
Lee J. Cronbach Richard G. Lomax Rand Roger Wilcox
William R. Dillon Robert Lorch, Jr. Alex C. Wilkinson
Ronald G. Downey Brian MacPherson Rebecca Zwick
Stephen L. Edgell George B. Macready
Donald G. Edwards Robert L. Mason