Assessing the goodness-of-fit of a logistic regression model is a critical prerequisite before the model is used for inference. However, goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests such as the chi-square and deviance tests often give invalid results when the data are "sparse" -- a common issue with continuous predictors like age or weight, where the asymptotic distributional assumptions are not satisfied. This thesis studies classical GOF tests for binary logistic regression under both grouped and sparse data, comparing about 30 statistical tests and machine-learning calibration algorithms. These span the classical chi-square and Hosmer-Lemeshow variants, standardized Pearson statistics, covariate-space partitioning, smoothing-based methods, and contemporary calibration machine-learning and bootstrap procedures. At a fixed size, the GiViTI calibration test (2016), McCullagh (1989), Osius-Rojek (1992), le Cessie (1995) and Stute-Zhu (2002) proved empirically powerful, balancing correct identification of bad models (high empirical power) against not raising false alarms on good models (correct empirical Type I error). Relying on formal methods alone is insufficient: visual diagnostics such as calibration plots are a vital exploratory step for detecting model deficiencies that formal tests often overlook. An application to real data (the Low Birth Weight dataset) shows that many of these tests fail to give valid conclusions when exposed to the complexities of actual datasets. The main conclusion is that model assessment requires a combination of several powerful statistical tests alongside careful visual inspection of model calibration.
🌊
