How to report a Pearson correlation in APA style (7th ed.)
A correlation is the shortest result to report and the easiest to report badly. Here is what the sentence needs, when a table is better, a worked example, and six mistakes reviewers flag.
What the sentence must contain
The coefficient r with its degrees of freedom (N − 2) or the sample size, the p-value, the direction in words (positively, negatively), and — APA 7 asks for it — a confidence interval. Say what was correlated with what; "the variables were correlated" names nothing.
The pattern
Age was positively correlated with score, r(58) = .31, p = .015, 95% CI [.06, .52]. For a null result: Age and satisfaction were not significantly correlated, r(58) = .12, p = .36, 95% CI [−.14, .36].
Numbers in the pattern are placeholders.
Drop the leading zero for r and p — neither can exceed 1. Two decimals for r, three for p (or p < .001).
When a table is better
Three or more variables give three or more coefficients. Put them in a correlation matrix — variables down the side, r in the cells, significance marked with asterisks explained in a note, and M and SD in the first columns — and let the text point to the table rather than list every pair.
A worked example
On a synthetic sample of 60 respondents, age was positively correlated with score, r(58) = .26, p = .041, 95% CI [.01, .49]. In the same sample, satisfaction and score were built to move together, r(58) = .87 — a reminder that a very large r can be a feature of how the data were made, not a discovery.
These numbers were produced by the engine that computed the matrix; the same sample is in the six-step walkthrough.
Before you trust r
Pearson's r measures a straight-line relationship. Look at the scatterplot first: a curve, a ceiling, or two or three extreme cases can produce an r that describes nothing. For ordinal data or clear outliers, report Spearman's rho and say why.
Six mistakes reviewers flag
- r without N or df — r = .31 from 20 people and from 2,000 are different claims.
- "Weak" or "strong" from the number alone — say the field’s conventions or give the CI; the label is not the evidence.
- Causal verbs — "age increases score." A correlation supports "was associated with," nothing more.
- A leading zero on r or p — .31, not 0.31.
- r² reported as "explains 10% of the variance" with no interval — an estimate with no uncertainty attached.
- Listing ten pairs in prose — that is a table.
Where the numbers come from
In Statory the sentence is generated from the same computation that produced the matrix, so the two cannot disagree. Every analysis shows its evidence — see the accuracy page.
The same engine runs inside Claude when you paste a table there.