The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation
Abstract
Correlation and correlation‐based measures (e.g., the coefficient of determination) have been widely used to evaluate the “goodness‐of‐fit” of hydrologic and hydroclimatic models. These measures are oversensitive to extreme values (outliers) and are insensitive to additive and proportional differences between model predictions and observations. Because of these limitations, correlation‐based measures can indicate that a model is a good predictor, even when it is not. In this paper, useful alternative goodness‐of‐fit or relative error measures (including the coefficient of efficiency and the index of agreement) that overcome many of the limitations of correlation‐based measures are discussed. Modifications to these statistics to aid in interpretation are presented. It is concluded that correlation and correlation‐based measures should not be used to assess the goodness‐of‐fit of a hydrologic or hydroclimatic model and that additional evaluation measures (such as summary statistics and absolute error measures) should supplement model evaluation tools.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation
Efron, B., & Gong, G. (1983) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1983.10483087 · Cited by 3,229
Nonparametric estimates of standard error: The jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods
EFRON, B. (1981) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/68.3.589 · Cited by 1,399
Cited by
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., & Martinez, G. F. (2009) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003 · Cited by 6,758
SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation
Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R. D., van Griensven, A., Liew, M. W. V., et al. (2012) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.42256 · Cited by 3,450
An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily Database
Menne, M. J., Durre, I., Vose, R. S., Gleason, B. E., & Houston, T. G. (2012) · Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-11-00103.1 · Cited by 1,993
Estimating Uncertain Flow and Transport Parameters Using a Sequential Uncertainty Fitting Procedure
Abbaspour, K. C., Johnson, C. A., & van Genuchten, M. T. (2004) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.2136/vzj2004.1340 · Cited by 1,153
Metadata
- Authors
- Legates, D. R., & McCabe, G. J.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 233-241
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2037460094
- Cited by
- 4,591
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 34.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/1998wr900018
- The paper
- Legates, D. R., & McCabe, G. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998wr900018
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.
