Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 739

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Robustness?

Bradley, James V.·1978·British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Abstract

The actual behaviour of the probability of a Type I error under assumption violation is quite complex, depending upon a wide variety of interacting factors. Yet allegations of robustness tend to ignore its highly particularistic nature and neglect to mention important qualifying conditions. The result is often a vast overgeneralization which nevertheless is difficult to refute since a standard quantitative definition of what constitutes robustness does not exist. Yet under any halfway reasonable quantitative definition, many of the most prevalent claims of robustness would be demonstrably false. Therefore robustness is a highly questionable concept.

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 · 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1978.tb00581.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 739

Metadata

Authors
Bradley, J. V.
Venue
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1978-11
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
144-152
ISSN
  • 0007-1102 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8317
OpenAlex
W4253749611
Cited by
739
References
0
FWCI
4.71
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: Robustness? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1978.tb00581.x
The paper
Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1978.tb00581.x

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.