Large correlation tables and CIs

[bwiernik]

I am quite in favor of always reporting confidence intervals with the package functions. However, when a correlation matrix is very large, the number of intervals can become unwieldy and unhelpful. Often, all of the variables are included in such a table for completeness in reporting and not because they form the basis for direct inference (e.g. the correlations among 15 indicators at 4 time points).

For such cases, it would be useful to provide options to summarize CI information or limit the CIs to correlations of interest. For example, show.conf.interval = "note" could provide an approximate summary confidence interval in the table note: “Correlations have a confidence interval margin of error ≈ +/– .12.” show.conf.interval could perhaps also take a named vector of the variables of interest for which to report CIs (e.g., interest might be in correlations with a total score, but facet scales are reported for completeness as well; demographic correlations might be reported for completeness, but not be of substantive interest).

In either of these cases, to discourage dichotomous interpretations, I would say to omit significance stars when CIs are suppressed.

[gserapio]

Yes, in the cases of large correlation matrices it's extremely time consuming to remove all of the CIs manually from a word doc! This feature would be a lifesaver.

[awmeade]

Agreed. Having CI on as the default would be a lot more user friendly than forcing it to be on.