# How to Calculate a Partial Correlation Coefficient in R: An Example with Oxidizing Ammonia to Make Nitric Acid

May 5, 2013 8 Comments

#### Introduction

Today, I will talk about the math behind calculating partial correlation and illustrate the computation in R. The computation uses an example involving the oxidation of ammonia to make nitric acid, and this example comes from a built-in data set in R called *stackloss*.

I read Pages 234-237 in Section 6.6 of “Discovering Statistics Using R” by Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, and Zoe Field to learn about partial correlation. They used a data set called “Exam Anxiety.dat” available from their companion web site (look under “6 Correlation”) to illustrate this concept; they calculated the partial correlation coefficient between exam anxiety and revision time while controlling for exam score. As I discuss further below, the plot between the 2 above residuals helps to illustrate the calculation of partial correlation coefficients. This plot makes intuitive sense; if you take more time to study for an exam, you tend to have less exam anxiety, so there is a negative correlation between revision time and exam anxiety.

They used a function called pcor() in a package called “ggm”; however, I suspect that this package is no longer working properly, because it depends on a deprecated package called “RBGL” (i.e. “RBGL” is no longer available in CRAN). See this discussion thread for further information. Thus, I wrote my own R function to illustrate partial correlation.

Partial correlation is the correlation between 2 random variables while holding other variables constant. To calculate the partial correlation between X and Y while holding Z constant (or controlling for the effect of Z, or averaging out Z),

1) perform a normal linear least-squares regression with X as the target and Z as the predictor

2) calculate the residuals in Step #1

3) perform a normal linear least-squares regression with Y as the target and Z as the predictor

4) calculate the residuals in Step #3

5) calculate the correlation coefficient between the residuals from Steps #2 and #4; the result is the partial correlation between X and Y while controlling for the effect of Z

, of course, is an estimator of the correlation coefficient; 3 such common estimators are the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s *r*), the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s *rho*), and the Kendall rank correlation coefficient (Kendall’s *tau*).

#### Example – Oxidation of Ammonia to Nitric Acid in the Stackloss Data Set

There is a built-in data set in R called stackloss with measurements on operations in a plant that oxidized ammonia (NH_{3}) to make nitridc acid (HNO_{3}). This paper by Taylor, Chilton and Handforth describes the process pretty clearly on its first page.

1) Pass a mixture of air and ammonia through red-hot catalytic wire gauze to make nitric oxide.

4NH_{3} + 5O_{2} → 4NO + 6H_{2}O

2) As the nitric oxide cools, it reacts with excess oxygen to make nitrogen dioxide.

2NO + O_{2} → 2NO_{2}

3) The nitrogen dioxide reacts with water to form nitric acid.

3NO_{2} + H_{2}O ⇌ 2HNO_{3} + NO

I want to calculate the partial correlation coefficient between air flow speed and water temperature while controlling for acid concentration. Following the procedure above, here is the plot of the relevant residuals.

The Pearson correlation coefficient is a commonly used estimator for the correlation coefficient, but hypothesis testing based on Pearson’s *r* is known to be problematic when dealing with non-normal data or outliers (Bishara and Hittner, 2012). Let’s check for the normality underlying our data. Here is the Q-Q plot of the residuals of regressing air flow on acid concentration.

**Note the 2 “dips” below the identity line in the intervals [-5, 0] and [0,10] along the horizontal axis**. These “dips” suggest to me that there is a systematic deviation away from normality for these residuals.

Furthermore, recall from my earlier blog post that you can check for normality by the ratio of the interquartile range to the standard deviation. If this ratio is not 1.35, then there is reason to suspect that the distribution is not normal. **For the residuals from regressing air flow on acid concentration, this ratio is 0.75, which is far enough away from 1.35 to suggest non-normality**.

Given that there are only 21 residuals, and given that the 2 ways to check for normality above suggest non-normality, **it is best to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the data come from a normal distribution**. (*This is different from asserting that the data definitely come from a non-normal distribution*. Given the low sample size, I just can’t be certain that the population is normally distributed.) **Thus, I will not use Pearson’s r to estimate the partial correlation**. (Someone with the handle

*ars*in a discussion thread in Cross Validated referred a paper by Kowalski (1972) about Pearson’s

*r*for further thoughts.)

I estimate the partial correlation using Spearman’s rho, which, using the cor() function, is calculated as 0.5976564. However, is this estimate statistically significant? To answer this question, we can conduct a hypothesis test.

For Spearman’s rho, the sampling distribution is

,

where

In our example, T = 3.162624, and the p-value is 0.005387061. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that this correlation is significant.

In comparing Spearman’s rho and Kendalls’ tau in a set of presentation slides titled *Overview of Non-Parametric Statistics*, Mark Seiss from the Department of Statistics at Virginia Tech stated “…most researchers conclude there is little basis to choose one over the other”. Thus, I chose to use Spearman’s rho purely out of my familiarity with it. I welcome your comments about why Kendall’s tau is better.

In a discussion at Cross Validated, someone with the handle *onestop* referred to a paper by Newson (2002) that cited a book by Kendall & Gibbons (1990); *onestop* reproduced this quotation: “…confidence intervals for Spearman’s *r _{S}* are less reliable and less interpretable than confidence intervals for Kendall’s

*τ*-parameters, but the sample Spearman’s

*r*is much more easily calculated without a computer”. I’m curious about whether or not this result is transferrable to hypothesis testing.

_{S}#### References

Bishara, A. J., & Hittner, J. B. (2012). *Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: Comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches.*

Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, and Zoe Field. (2012). *Discovering statistics using R*. Sage Publications Limited.

Kowalski, Charles J. “On the effects of non-normality on the distribution of the sample product-moment correlation coefficient.” *Applied Statistics* (1972): 1-12.

Newson R. *Parameters behind “nonparametric” statistics: Kendall’s tau,Somers’ D and median differences*. Stata Journal 2002; 2(1):45-64.

Taylor, Guy B., Thomas H. Chilton, and Stanley L. Handforth. “Manufacture of Nitric Acid by the Oxidation of Ammonia1.” *Industrial & Engineering Chemistry*23.8 (1931): 860-865.

#### R Script for Entire Analysis

Here is the R code for computing everything in this analysis:

##### Partial Correlation - An Example with the Oxidation of Ammonia to Make Nitric Acid ##### By Eric Cai - The Chemical Statistician # extract variables from the Stackloss data set (already built in R) air.flow = stackloss[,1] water.temperature = stackloss[,2] acid = stackloss[,3] # conduct normal linear least-squares regression with air.flow as target and acid as predictor regress.air.acid = lm(air.flow~acid) # extract residuals from this regression residuals.air.acid = residuals(regress.air.acid) # conduct normal linear least-squares regression with water.temperature as target and acid as predictor regress.water.acid = lm(water.temperature~acid) # extract residuals from this regression residuals.water.acid = residuals(regress.water.acid) # plot the 2 sets of residuals against each other to see if there is a linear trend png('INSERT YOUR DIRECTORY PATH HERE/residuals plot air flow and water temperature controlling acid concentration.png') plot(residuals.air.acid, residuals.water.acid, xlab = 'Residuals from Regressing Air Flow on Acid Concentration', ylab = 'Residuals from Regressing Water Temperature on Acid Concentration', main = 'Partial Correlation Between Air Flow and Water Temperature\n Controlling for Acid Concentration') dev.off() # normal q-q plot of residuals of regressing air flow on acid to check for normality png('INSERT YOUR DIRECTORY PATH HERE/q-q plot air flow residuals on acid concentration.png') qqplot(qnorm(seq(0,1,length=101), mean(residuals.air.acid), sd(residuals.air.acid)), residuals.air.acid, xlab = 'Theoretical Quantiles from Normal Distribution', ylab = 'Sample Quqnatiles of Air Flow Residuals', main = 'Normal Quantile-Quantile Plot \n Residuals from Regressing Air Flow on Acid Concentration') # add the identity line abline(0,1) dev.off() # check if the ratio of interquartile range to standard deviation is 1.35 (this is a check for normality) five.num.summary.airflow.acid = summary(residuals.air.acid) q3.airflow.acid = five.num.summary.airflow.acid[5] q1.airflow.acid = five.num.summary.airflow.acid[2] (q3.airflow.acid - q1.airflow.acid)/sd(residuals.air.acid) # sample size n = length(air.flow) # use Spearman correlation coefficient to calculate the partial correlation partial.correlation = cor(residuals.air.acid, residuals.water.acid, method = 'spearman') # calculate the test statistic and p-value of the Spearman correlation coefficient test.statistic = partial.correlation*sqrt((n-3)/(1-partial.correlation^2)) test.statistic p.value = 2*pt(abs(test.statistic), n-3, lower.tail = F) p.value

I’ve heard two versions of Spearman partial correlation. One version ranks all the variables, does the initial regressions on the ranks, then does a pearson correlation between the residuals. Your version here does regular residuals, then does a spearman correlation between the residuals. Which is correct?

Hi JP,

Thanks for your question. I don’t know the answer, and I researched this on the web. I don’t know if there is a “right” answer to this question.

1) I cannot find a reliable source that talks about both methods, let alone compares their merits.

2) To me, an estimator is good if

– its expected value is or is close to the parameter (i.e. it has low bias or is unbiased)

– has a low variance

– is robust to outliers

Thus, regardless of which of the 2 methods produces the “right” Spearman partial correlation, it is more important to ask which method produces a better estimator according to the above criteria. I don’t know the answer to this, either. Mathematical statistics or Monte Carlo studies may be useful to answer this question.

I’m guessing that regressing with ranks rather than the actual values would result in a loss of valuable information about the unexplained variability that is supposed to show up in the residuals. Thus, I would be more comfortable with my own method.

I welcome others to help JP and I to answer these very good questions.

Hi Eric,

Thanks for posting this example. I am also wondering the same thing that JP had asked. While I have found similar examples for the pearson partial correlation, I have not been able to find a spearman’s partial correlation calculation done the way you have shown here. Could you provide me the source you used to decide to apply the spearman partial method demonstrated above?

Hi Drew,

Thanks for your very astute comment. I don’t have a reference for my method; I just applied my judgment about the non-normality of the residuals to use Spearman’s correlation coefficient instead. After doing some research, I found that SAS uses the method that JP mentioned.

I’ll need to do more research and think about that. (I’ve been swamped with work this week, and I need to catch up with a lot of blogging.) Please give me some time, and thanks for your patience.

Thanks again for your very good comment!

Through my own searching I found the R package “ppcor” to match the method JP mentioned, and a book preview on Google Books titled “Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures: Third Edition” (By David J. Sheskin) That also briefly hints that the variables are ranked before regression. To read the relevant pages Google search the phrases “Equation 28.100 can be employed” and then “equation 28.100 is the general equation for computing” to get around Google’s Page Preview censorship.

I hope there are sources to back up your spearman partial method because I appreciate the logic behind it. Ranking reduces fidelity, so why do that before it is necessary?

I’m the same JP that posted almost a year ago. I don’t have much to add except I sifted through a bunch of textbooks back in the fall, and did not find a definitive answer. I also noted that the ppcor and SAS seemed to use the first method, so I went with that, but I agree that it would be nicer to lose less information.

Hi JP,

Thanks for following up on this. After researching this and reaching a dead end myself, I posted my question on LinkedIn’s Advanced Business Analytics, Data Mining and Predictive Modeling group (a large and popular group that often has good ideas to share on statistics). I got one response from Mark Pundurs, who suggested using Monte Carlo simulations and comparing the 2 methods. This is a good idea, but I have not taken the time to try it out.

I’m contacting a few more trusted sources, and I will share what I learn.

Thanks again for your comment, and I’m sorry for forgetting to update you all about what I did and learned. (I’m currently on vacation, so thanks for your patience while I’m absent from my blog for a while.)

Eric

Hi JP,

I asked this question to my mathematical statistics professor from my graduate studies, and he was stumped – he said that it was indeed a very difficult question. He did warn me that the methods may be estimating different things.

I think that the next step should be to conduct Monte Carlo studies; this problem is likely too hard for theory to tackle. I’ll keep this mind as a blog topic for a future post.

Thanks again for your follow-up.

Eric