Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative methods in psychology.

Lewis, Don·1960·McGraw-Hill Book Company

Abstract

Presence of excess zeros and the distributions are major concern in modeling count data.Zero inflated and hurdle models are regression techniques which can handle zero inflated count data.This study compares various count regression models for survey data observed with excess zeros.The data for the study is obtained from a survey conducted to assess the harms attributable to drinkers among children.Poisson, negative binomial and their zero inflated and hurdle versions were compared by fitting them to two count response variables, number of physical and number of psychological harms.The models were compared using fit indices, residual analysis and predicted values.The robustness of the models were also compared using simulated data sets.Results indicated that the Poisson regression was less robust to deviations from the distributional assumptions.The negative binomial regression and hurdle regression model were found to be suitable to model the number of physical and number of psychological harms respectively.The results showed that excess zeros in count data does not imply zero inflation.The zero inflated or hurdle models are suitable for zero inflated data.The selection between the zero inflated and hurdle models should be based on the assumed cause of zeros.

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 · 10.1037/11626-000

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Lewis, D.
Venue
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Published
1960
OpenAlex
W1964788795
Cited by
481
References
2
FWCI
17.23
Type
book
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: Quantitative methods in psychology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/11626-000
The paper
Lewis, D. (1960). Quantitative methods in psychology. McGraw-Hill Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11626-000

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.