10242016 02:17 PM
Hi all,
Using the same dataset with no missing values, I get a different value for the Pearson correlation coefficient from SAS Proc Corr than my colleague and I get using the Correl function in Excel. Does anyone know what might be the reason?
Thanks
proc corr data=all pearson;
var bb;
with aa;
run;
10242016 03:58 PM
Does your Excel data have "missing" values? If so, how are they represented. Sometimes folks use a 0 or 99 or such in Excel which actually gets included in calculations.
10242016 02:29 PM
Can you provide an example? The following SAS data set gives the same results up to the format being used.
SAS Output

Excel Output

Except for the fact that Excel prints more digits, this is the same result.
Excel directions: https://support.office.com/enus/article/CORRELfunction995dcef70c0a4beda3fb239d7b68ca92
SAS Code:
data all;
input bb aa;
datalines;
3 9
2 .
4 12
. 15
6 17
;
proc corr data=all pearson;
var bb;
with aa;
run;
10252016 11:20 AM
Thank you for looking into my issue. We figured out from the below that there was a 99 in the excel file that was causing the problem.
10242016 03:58 PM
Does your Excel data have "missing" values? If so, how are they represented. Sometimes folks use a 0 or 99 or such in Excel which actually gets included in calculations.
10252016 11:18 AM
Thanks for the suggestion. Upon further examination, indeed it was the 99 that was causing the problem. Thanks for your help!
10252016 11:55 AM
Glad you figured it out.
Although using 99 to indicate a missing value was popular in the 1970s, it is usually discouraged nowadays because of problems like this. If the spreadsheet contains empty cells, I think most Excel statistical functions correctly treat the empty cell as a missing value.
Need further help from the community? Please ask a new question.