-indefenseofmeasuresoffitincomparisonofmodelsto（66页）.docVIP

Running head: Evaluating goodness-of-fit Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit in Comparison of Models to Data Christian D. Schunn University of Pittsburgh Dieter Wallach University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern Contact information: Learning Research and Development Center Room 715 University of Pittsburgh 3939 O’Hara St. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA Email: schunn@ Office: +1 412 624 8807 Fax: +1 412 624 7439 Abstract Computational and mathematical models, in addition to providing a method for demonstrating qualitative predictions resulting from interacting mechanisms, provide quantitative predictions that can be used to discriminate between alternative models and uncover which aspects of a given theoretical framework require further elaboration. Unfortunately, there are no formal standards for how to evaluate the quantitative goodness-of-fit of models to data, either visually or numerically. As a result, there is considerable variability in methods used, with frequent selection of choices that misinform the reader. While there are some subtle and perhaps controversial issues involved in the evaluation of goodness-of-fit, there are many simple conventions that are quite uncontroversial and should be adopted now. In this paper, we review various kinds of visual display techniques and numerical measures of goodness-of-fit, setting new standards for the selection and use of such displays and measures.  Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit in Comparison of Models to Data As theorizing in science becomes more complex, with the addition of multiple, interacting mechanisms potentially being applied to complex, possibly reactive input, it is increasingly necessary to have mathematical or computational instantiations of the theories to be able to determine whether the intuitive predictions derived from verbal theories actually hold. In other words, the instantiated models can serve as a sufficiency demonstration. Executable models serve another important function, howe