Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 637

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessing the Significance of the Correlation between Two Spatial Processes

Clifford, Peter, Richardson, Sylvia, Hemon, Denis·1989·Biometrics

Abstract

Modified tests of association based on the correlation coefficient or the covariance between two spatially autocorrelated processes are presented. These tests can be used both for lattice and nonlattice data. They are based on the evaluation of an effective sample size that takes into account the spatial structure. For positively autocorrelated processes, the effective sample size is reduced. A method for evaluating this reduction via an approximation of the variance of the correlation coefficient is developed. The performance of the tests is assessed by Monte Carlo simulations. The method is illustrated by examples from geographical epidemiology.

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 · 10.2307/2532039

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 637

Metadata

Authors
Clifford, P., Richardson, S., & Hemon, D.
Venue
Biometrics
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1989-03
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
123
ISSN
0006-341X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976553079
Cited by
637
References
0
FWCI
15.80
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: Assessing the Significance of the Correlation between Two Spatial Processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2532039
The paper
Clifford, P., Richardson, S., & Hemon, D. (1989). Assessing the Significance of the Correlation between Two Spatial Processes. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532039

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.