Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies

Westgard, James O·2008·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Feature Article: Westgard JO, Hunt MR. Use and interpretation of common statistical tests in method comparison studies. Clin Chem 1973;19:49–57.1 Marian Hunt and I published this paper to improve the understanding and application of commonly used statistics in method validation studies. We specifically wanted to clarify the misuse of the correlation coefficient and t-test statistics, and to point out important factors that affected the reliability of least squares statistics. This paper also provided some direction in making decisions on the acceptability of a method by using statistics to estimate the sizes of analytical errors. A subsequent paper (1) provided criteria for comparing those estimates of errors with quality standards that defined the amount of allowable error. This paper was written at a time when I was very involved in the evaluation of new automated analytic systems. At that time little guidance was available as to how to analyze and interpret the data from method evaluation experiments. Decisions on acceptability of new methods seldom provided any rational explanation as to why a method was judged acceptable or not. The correlation coefficient was the statistic most often being used to justify decisions on acceptability, followed by the t-test, in which the decision was based on whether or not the t-value indicated a statistically significant difference (i.e., calculated t-value greater than the critical t-value) between methods. Neither of these approaches took into account the actual quality required for the application of laboratory tests.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Westgard, J. O.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2008-03-01
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
612-612
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W1991656581
Cited by
310
References
12
FWCI
6.03
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: Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060
The paper
Westgard, J. O. (2008). Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060

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.