Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© 2019 The Authors Background and Objectives: Definitions of calibration, an aspect of model validation, have evolved over time. We examine use and interpretation of the statistic currently referred to as the calibration slope. Methods: The history of the term “calibration slope”, and usage in papers published in 2016 and 2017, were reviewed. The behaviour of the slope in illustrative hypothetical examples and in two examples in the clinical literature was demonstrated. Results: The paper in which the statistic was proposed described it as a measure of “spread” and did not use the term “calibration”. In illustrative examples, slope of 1 can be associated with good or bad calibration, and this holds true across different definitions of calibration. In data extracted from a previous study, the slope was correlated with discrimination, not overall calibration. Many authors of recent papers interpret the slope as a measure of calibration; a minority interpret it as a measure of discrimination or do not explicitly categorise it as either. Seventeen of thirty-three papers used the slope as the sole measure of calibration. Conclusion: Misunderstanding about this statistic has led to many papers in which it is the sole measure of calibration, which should be discouraged.

Original publication




Journal article


Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Publication Date





93 - 99