Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Model Evaluation›Specificity
MCDMClassification Metric

Specificity

Specificity (True Negative Rate) · Also known as: True Negative Rate, TNR

Specificity measures the proportion of actual negative cases that were correctly identified as negative by the classifier. It answers the question: 'Of all the cases that were truly negative, how many did we correctly reject?' Specificity is complementary to recall and is essential when false positives are costly.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Specificity
Balanced AccuracyF1-ScoreMatthews Correlation Coe…PrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)Confusion MatrixYoudens J Statistic

When to use it

Use specificity when false positives are costly or lead to unnecessary downstream actions. In medical screening, high specificity ensures healthy people are not misdiagnosed as sick, avoiding unnecessary treatment. In spam detection, high specificity ensures legitimate emails are not filtered. Specificity is less critical when false negatives (missing positive cases) are the primary concern.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Directly measures the ability to correctly identify negative cases; high specificity means low false positive rate.
  • Interpretable: specificity = 1.0 means no false positives.
  • Essential for applications where false positives lead to costly downstream decisions.
  • Complements recall and precision to give a complete picture of classification performance.
Limitations
  • Ignores false negatives; a model could have high specificity while missing many positive cases.
  • Can be artificially high if the model is overly conservative and rarely predicts positive.
  • Does not account for class imbalance or the relative costs of different error types.
  • Alone, specificity is incomplete without considering recall.

Frequently asked

What is the relationship between specificity and precision?

Specificity and precision both measure aspects of negative prediction quality, but they differ: specificity measures how well we identify actual negatives (true negative rate), while precision measures how often our positive predictions are correct. They answer different questions: 'Can we trust negative cases?' vs. 'Can we trust positive predictions?'

How does specificity relate to recall and balanced accuracy?

Recall and specificity are symmetric metrics: recall measures sensitivity to positive cases (true positive rate), while specificity measures sensitivity to negative cases (true negative rate). In binary classification, balanced accuracy is the average of recall and specificity: (recall + specificity) / 2, which weights both types of correct predictions equally.

Why might a model have high specificity but low recall?

A model with high specificity but low recall correctly identifies most negative cases (few false positives) but misses many positive cases (many false negatives). This occurs when the model is overly conservative, predicting positive only in cases where it is very confident. This is appropriate only when false positives are extremely costly and missing cases is acceptable.

Sources

  1. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874. DOI: 10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 ↗
  2. Powers, D. M. (2011). Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness and Correlation. Journal of Machine Learning Technologies, 2(1), 37-63. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Specificity (True Negative Rate). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/model-evaluation/specificity

Related methods

Balanced AccuracyF1-ScoreMatthews Correlation CoefficientPrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Balanced AccuracyModel Evaluation↔ compare
  • F1-ScoreModel Evaluation↔ compare
  • Matthews Correlation CoefficientModel Evaluation↔ compare
  • PrecisionModel Evaluation↔ compare
  • Recall (Sensitivity)Model Evaluation↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Balanced AccuracyConfusion MatrixPrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)Youdens J Statistic

Similar methods

Recall (Sensitivity)PrecisionSensitivity and SpecificityAccuracyBalanced AccuracyF1-ScoreConfusion MatrixF-beta Score

Related reference concepts

SpecificitySensitivityNegative Predictive ValueScreening Test Characteristics and PerformancePerformance MetricsReceiver Operating Characteristic Curve

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Specificity (Specificity (True Negative Rate)). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/model-evaluation/specificity · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Historical statistical foundations
Subfamily
Classification Metric
Year
20th century
Type
Evaluation metric
Related methods
Balanced AccuracyF1-ScoreMatthews Correlation CoefficientPrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account