Cited by 90Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisStatistical Methods and Inference

Assessing local model adequacy in Bayesian hierarchical models using the partitioned deviance information criterion

Open access
Wheeler, David C., Hickson, DeMarc A., Waller, Lance A.·2010·Computational Statistics & Data Analysis

Abstract

Many diagnostic tools and goodness-of-fit measures, such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian deviance information criterion (DIC), are available to evaluate the overall adequacy of linear regression models. In addition, visually assessing adequacy in models has become an essential part of any regression analysis. In this paper, we focus on a spatial consideration of the local DIC measure for model selection and goodness-of-fit evaluation. We use a partitioning of the DIC into the local DIC, leverage, and deviance residuals to assess local model fit and influence for both individual observations and groups of observations in a Bayesian framework. We use visualization of the local DIC and differences in local DIC between models to assist in model selection and to visualize the global and local impacts of adding covariates or model parameters. We demonstrate the utility of the local DIC in assessing model adequacy using HIV prevalence data from pregnant women in the Butare province of Rwanda during 1989-1993 using a range of linear model specifications, from global effects only to spatially varying coefficient models, and a set of covariates related to sexual behavior. Results of applying the diagnostic visualization approach include more refined model selection and greater understanding of the models as applied to the data.

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 · 10.1016/j.csda.2010.01.025

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 90

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Best NG Arnold RA Thomas A Waller LA Conlon EM 1999 Bayesian models for spatially correlated disease and exposure data Bayesian statistics 6 Bernardo JM Berger JO Dawid AP Smith AFM Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 131 156
  2. Hickson DA 2005 Multilevel (hierarchical) analysis of the human immunodeficiency virus and high risk sexual behavior: Assessing model fit with the deviance information criterion and generalized coefficient of determination Dissertation Emory University, Department of Biostatistics Atlanta, GA
  3. Thomas A Best N Lunn D Arnold R Spiegelhalter D 2004 GeoBUGS user manual, version 1.2 MRC Biostatistics Unit Cambridge
  4. Tukey JW 1977 Explanatory data analysis Addison-Wesley Reading, MA

Authors
Wheeler, D. C., Hickson, D. A., & Waller, L. A.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Wheeler, David C.
Venue
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-06
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
1657-1671
ISSN
0167-9473 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995782290
Cited by
90
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computational Statistics & Data Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES015525)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
Bayesian hierarchical model, model adequacy, goodness of fit, model selection, leverage, deviance residuals, spatially varying coefficients, HIV prevalence, pregnant women, sexual behavior

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