Cited by 164Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods and Inference

Goodness-of-fit processes for logistic regression: simulation results

Open access
Hosmer, David W., Hjort, Nils Lid·2002·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1200

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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.
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
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