Goodness-of-fit processes for logistic regression: simulation results
Open accessAbstract
In this paper we use simulations to compare the performance of new goodness-of-fit tests based on weighted statistical processes to three currently available tests: the Hosmer-Lemeshow decile-of-risk test; the Pearson chi-square, and the unweighted sum-of-squares tests. The simulations demonstrate that all tests have the correct size. The power for all tests to detect lack-of-fit due to an omitted quadratic term with a sample of size 100 is close to or exceeds 50 per cent to detect moderate departures from linearity and is over 90 per cent for these same alternatives for sample size 500. All tests have low power with sample size 100 to detect lack-of-fit due to an omitted interaction between a dichotomous and continuous covariate, while the power exceeds 80 per cent to detect extreme interaction with a sample size of 500. The power is low to detect any alternative link function with sample size 100 and for most alternative links for sample size 500. Only in the case of sample size 500 and an extremely asymmetric link function is the power over 80 per cent. The results from these simulations show that no single test, new or current, performs best in detecting lack-of-fit due to an omitted covariate or incorrect link function. However, one of the new weighted tests has power comparable to other tests in all settings simulated and had the highest power in the difficult case of an omitted interaction term. We illustrate the tests within the context of a model for factors associated with abstinence from drug use in a randomized trial of residential treatment programmes. We conclude the paper with a summary and specific recommendations for practice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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 previous simulations, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed such poor performance that it may not be recommended for routine use.
“In previous simulations, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed such poor performance that it may not be recommended for routine use [7,37].”
From A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data (2016) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 164
- Authors
- Hosmer, D. W., & Hjort, N. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Hosmer, David W.
- ORCID
- Hjort, Nils Lid
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-07-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 2723-2738
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2045803625
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Keywords
- goodness-of-fit tests, logistic regression, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, Pearson chi-square test, lack of fit, statistical power, sample size, drug abstinence, residential treatment
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Humans, Residential Treatment, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, HIV Infections, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Substance-Related Disorders
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