The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Abstract
Preface.Preface to the Second Edition.Preface to the First Edition.1. An Introduction to Applied Probability.2. Statistical Inference for a Single Proportion.3. Assessing Significance in a Fourfold Table.4. Determining Sample Sizes Needed to Detect a Difference Between Two Proportions.5. How to Randomize.6. Comparative Studies: Cross-Sectional, Naturalistic, or Multinomial Sampling.7. Comparative Studies: Prospective and Retrospective Sampling.8. Randomized Controlled Trials.9. The Comparison of Proportions from Several Independent Samples.10. Combining Evidence from Fourfold Tables.11. Logistic Regression.12. Poisson Regression.13. Analysis of Data from Matched Samples.14. Regression Models for Matched Samples.15. Analysis of Correlated Binary Data.16. Missing Data.17. Misclassification Errors: Effects, Control, and Adjustment.18. The Measurement of Interrater Agreement.19. The Standardization of Rates.Appendix A. Numerical Tables.Appendix B. The Basic Theory of Maximum Likelihood Estimation.Appendix C. Answers to Selected Problems.Author Index.Subject Index.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Different guidelines are available (Fleiss et al. 2003; Landis and Koch 1977; Altman 1991; George and Mallery 2003; Stemler and Tsai 2008) as summarized in Table 1.”
From Do They Agree? Bibliometric Evaluation versus Informed Peer Review in the Italian Research Assessment Exercise (2016) · cites this paper as Fleiss et al. 2003
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses.
Purcell, S., Neale, B., Todd-Brown, K., Thomas, L., Ferreira, M. A. R., Bender, D., Maller, J., Sklar, P., de Bakker, P. I. W., Daly, M. J., et al. (2007) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/519795 · Cited by 34,089
Meyer, I. H. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 · Cited by 14,736
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 · Cited by 9,349
Le Gall, J.-R. (1993) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.270.24.2957 · Cited by 7,773
Metadata
- Authors
- Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C.
- ORCID
- Paik, Myunghee Cho
- Venue
- Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-09-05
- ISSN
- 1940-6347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150290224
- Cited by
- 18,646
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 162 · 2025: 295 · 2024: 294 · 2023: 322 · 2022: 340 · 2021: 509 · 2020: 481 · 2019: 439 · 2018: 479 · 2017: 508 · 2016: 550 · 2015: 614 · 2014: 654 · 2013: 577 · 2012: 639
- FWCI
- 160.02
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wiley series in probability and statistics (publishedVersion)
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- rates and proportions, 2x2 contingency tables, sample size determination, randomization, randomized controlled trials, comparative analysis, matched samples, logistic regression, Poisson regression, correlated binary data, missing data, misclassification, interobserver agreement, maximum likelihood estimation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
