Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 432

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardizing the power of the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test in large data sets

Paul, Prabasaj, Pennell, Michael L., Lemeshow, Stanley·2013·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

The Hosmer–Lemeshow test is a commonly used procedure for assessing goodness of fit in logistic regression. It has, for example, been widely used for evaluation of risk‐scoring models. As with any statistical test, the power increases with sample size; this can be undesirable for goodness of fit tests because in very large data sets, small departures from the proposed model will be considered significant. By considering the dependence of power on the number of groups used in the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, we show how the power may be standardized across different sample sizes in a wide range of models. We provide and confirm mathematical derivations through simulation and analysis of data on 31,713 children from the Collaborative Perinatal Project. We make recommendations on how to choose the number of groups in the Hosmer–Lemeshow test based on sample size and provide example applications of the recommendations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.5525

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1542/peds.104.5.S1.1198 · doi:10.1542/peds.104.5.s1.1198
  2. 10.2307/2958431 · doi:10.2307/2958431
  3. 10.2307/2284803 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Paul, P., Pennell, M. L., & Lemeshow, S.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-26
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
67-80
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2166155963
Cited by
432
References
11
FWCI
23.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.