It's on the cusp of table or not. Some journals limit the number of tables, in which case not.

Some other suggestions:

I wouldn't both saying the data are ratio (really? That's rare), and they weren't normally distributed, sthey were approximately normally distributed.

You don't present the matrix, just the correlations, so don't mention the matrix.

Is the 248 df or N? I don't think you need to keep saying it. Presumably the reader knows that 's the sample size.

I'd write the variable names out in full, don't use abbreviations like langagg.

Don't use respectively. It strains my brain too much.

They weren't 'deemed' non-significant. They just weren't significant.

Gosh, that was a lot. Sorry, I can be picky sometimes. :)

On 6 January 2014 01:58, Ben Haysom-Newport <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi

Subjective Query. Should this sentence be turned into a table? I'm not sure.

"As the data is ratio type and it is normally distributed, a Pearson’s correlation matrix was produced for the variable ‘Interests: Lawyer’ and the five aggregate variables. The correlations found were as follows. LangAgg was highly correlated with Lawyer Interest (r(248) = .419, p < .001), as was QuantAgg (r(248) = .348, p < .001) and SocAgg (r(248) = .239, p < .001). However StressAgg and ExcitAgg were both deemed not significant (r(248) = .087, p = .171 and r(248) = .-071, p = .266 respectively). "

Best Wishes
Ben Haysom-Newport MSc, BSc (Hons), MBPsS