Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tests of Hypotheses in Overdispersed Poisson Regression and other Quasi-Likelihood Models

Breslow, Norman·1990·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Test statistics for evaluating the significance of added variables in a regression equation are developed for mixed Poisson models, where the structural parameter φ that determines the mean/variance relationship var(μ; φ) = μ + φ · μ 2 is estimated by the method of moments and the regression coefficients are estimated by quasi-likelihood. The formulas presented for test statistics and related estimating equations are applicable generally to quasi-likelihood models specified by an arbitrary mean value function μ(x; β), together with a variance function V(μ; φ) that contains one or more unknown parameters. Two versions of the Wald and score tests are investigated—one calculated from the usual model-based covariance matrix whose validity depends on correct specification of the variance function, and another using an “empirical” covariance matrix that has a more general asymptotic justification. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the quasi-likelihood/method of moments (QL/M) procedures yield approximately unbiased estimates of regression coefficients and their standard errors and that model-based Wald, score, and deviance tests approximate the nominal size at the 5% level for moderate sample sizes. The simpler Poisson analysis also produces approximately unbiased regression coefficients, even though the overdispersion is not accounted for. Although tests and standard errors based on Poisson theory are seriously in error in the presence of overdispersion, the empirical standard errors and especially the empirical score test obtained in conjunction with the Poisson analysis perform reasonably well with overdispersed data provided the sample size is sufficiently large. They perform less well in small samples than do the model-based QL/M procedures, probably because of the lack of precision in the empirical variances. These methods have important applications in epidemiology, toxicology, and related areas.

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 · 10.1080/01621459.1990.10476236

Cites

29 of 29 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 29 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Breslow, N.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1990-06
Volume
85
Issue
410
Pages
565-571
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2053086663
Cited by
288
References
29
FWCI
12.34
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: Tests of Hypotheses in Overdispersed Poisson Regression and other Quasi-Likelihood Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476236
The paper
Breslow, N. (1990). Tests of Hypotheses in Overdispersed Poisson Regression and other Quasi-Likelihood Models. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476236

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.