Cited by 248Remote-Sensing Image ClassificationRemote Sensing and Land UseStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Sample size determination for image classification accuracy assessment and comparison

Foody, Giles M.·2009·International Journal of Remote Sensing

Abstract

Many factors influence the quality and value of a classification accuracy assessment and evaluation programme. This paper focuses on the size of the testing set(s) used with particular regard to the impacts on accuracy assessment and comparison. Testing set size is important as the use of an inappropriately large or small sample could lead to limited and sometimes erroneous assessments of accuracy and of differences in accuracy. Here, some of the basic statistical principles of sample size determination are outlined, including a discussion of Type II errors and their control. The paper provides a discussion on some of the basic issues of sample size determination for accuracy assessment and includes factors linked to accuracy comparison. With the latter, the researcher should specify the effect size (minimum meaningful difference in accuracy), significance level and power used in an analysis and ideally also fit confidence limits to derived estimates. This will help design a study and aid the use of appropriate sample sizes, as well as facilitate interpretation of results. In particular, it will help avoid problems, such as under-powered analyses, and provide a richer information base for classification evaluation. The paper includes equations that could be used to determine sample sizes for common applications in remote sensing, using both independent and related samples.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01431160903130937

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 neural network method critically depends on relatively larger training and test datasets compared to image processing methods.

    “Hence, the neural network method critically depends on relatively larger training and test datasets compared to image processing methods [52-54].”
  • Neural networks require significant amounts of data to accurately perform a classification, especially with increasing number of classes.

    “However, they require significant amounts of data to accurately perform a classification, especially with increasing number of classes [52-54].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foody, G. M.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Foody, Giles M.
Venue
International Journal of Remote Sensing
Published
2009-09-23
Volume
30
Issue
20
Pages
5273-5291
ISSN
  • 0143-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5901
OpenAlex
W2004206930
Cited by
248
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
17.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Remote Sensing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Remote Sensing and Land Use
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
sample size determination, classification accuracy assessment, accuracy comparison, type II error, statistical power, effect size, confidence limits, remote sensing image classification

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