CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 496Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The importance of assessing the fit of logistic regression models: a case study.

Open access
Hosmer, D W, Taber, S, Lemeshow, S·1991·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.81.12.1630PMC PMC1405276
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The logistic regression model is being used with increasing frequency in all areas of public health research. In the calendar year 1989, over 30% of the articles published in the American Journal of Public Health employed some form of logistic regression modeling. In spite of this increase, there has been no commensurate increase in the use of commonly available methods for assessing model adequacy. METHODS: We review the current status of the use of logistic regression modeling in the American Journal of Public Health. We present a brief overview of currently available and easily used methods for assessing the adequacy of a fitted logistic regression model. RESULTS: An example is used to demonstrate the methods as well as a few of the adverse consequences of failing to assess the fit of the model. One important adverse consequence illustrated in the example is the inclusion of variables in the model as a result of the influence of one subject. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to address model adequacy may lead to misleading or incorrect inferences. Recommendations are made for the use of methods for assessing model adequacy and for future editorial policy in regard to the review of articles using logistic regression.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.81.12.1630

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hosmer DW, 1988, Biometrcal J., 30, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 496

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hosmer, D. W., Taber, S., & Lemeshow, S.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
1991-12
Volume
81
Issue
12
Pages
1630-1635
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.81.12.1630
PMC
PMC1405276
OpenAlex
W1984363050
Cited by
496
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 27
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
logistic regression, model fit assessment, model adequacy, influential observations, editorial policy, statistical reporting quality, public health research
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Public Health, Publishing, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Logistic Models

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