The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How to Use Ridit Analysis
Abstract
In many scientific studies in the biological and behavioral sciencesprobably in a majority of such studies-the scientist has to work with a response variable which falls in the borderland between dichotomous classifications (e.g. lived-died, yes-no) and refined measurement systems (i.e. measurements which are highly reproducable at different times or at different places). Sometimes the response variable is a subjective scale (i.e. a well ordered series of categories such as minor, moderate, severe). At other times the response variable takes numerical values but the measurement system is heavily dependent on the quality of experimental material, details of protocol, or the technical skill of the scientist. These borderland response variables may not be adequately analysed by the chi-square family of statistical methods and at the same time the t-test family of techniques may not be appropriate. In this situation ridit analysis may serve as a missing link between the two traditional families of statistical methods. This paper is addressed to scientists who are working with borderland response variables. It will contain no mathematical derivations (these will appear in a subsequent paper [1]). Its purpose is to explain and illustrate how to use ridit analysis in a scientific study. For this purpose a ridit analysis of data from the Cornell Automotive Crash Injury Research Program (ACIR) will be presented. This material will serve to illustrate the various problems that come up in actual studies, problems ranging from difficulties due to peculiarities and imperfections of the basic data to questions of presentation and interpretation of the results. The ACIR analysis will also show the role of ridit analysis in achieving the objectives of a scientific study. In this particular case the analysis throws light on a major public health problem-the carnage due to auto accidents. Nowadays the catalogue of statistical methods is so very extensive that a working scientist is somewhat less than overjoyed at the prospect
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Regression Models for Ordinal Data
McCullagh, P. (1980) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1980.tb01109.x · Cited by 4,453
Relationship of physical health status and health practices
Belloc, N. B., & Breslow, L. (1972) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/0091-7435(72)90014-x · Cited by 1,120
Rogers, S. L. (1998) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.158.9.1021 · Cited by 773
The Effects of Donepezil in Alzheimer’s Disease – Results from a Multinational Trial1
Burns, A., Rossor, M., Hecker, J., Gauthier, S., Petit, H., Möller, H.-J., Rogers, S. L., & Friedhoff, L. T. (1999) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · doi:10.1159/000017126 · Cited by 580
Coenegrachts, K., Delanote, J., Ter Beek, L., Haspeslagh, M., Bipat, S., Stoker, J., Van Kerkhove, F., Steyaert, L., Rigauts, H., & W Casselman, J. (2007) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/33156643 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- Authors
- Bross, I. D. J.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1958-03
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969001549
- Cited by
- 635
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.07
- 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: How to Use Ridit Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2527727
- The paper
- Bross, I. D. J. (1958). How to Use Ridit Analysis. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527727
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.