Ethical Numbers: Ethics Training in U.S. Graduate Statistics Programs, 2013–2014

As important members of research teams, statisticians bear an ethical responsibility to analyze, interpret, and report data honestly and objectively. One way of reinforcing ethical responsibilities is through required courses covering a variety of ethics-related topics at the graduate level. We assessed ethics requirements for graduate-level statistics training programs in the United States for the 2013–2014 academic year using the websites of 88 universities, examining 103 biostatistics programs, and 136 statistics degree programs. We categorized programs’ ethics training requirements as required or not required. Thirty-one (35.1%) universities required an ethics course for at least some degree students. Sixty-two (25.5%) degree programs required an ethics course for at least some students. The majority (77.4%) of required courses were worth 0 or 1 credit. Of the 177 programs without an ethics requirement, 19 (10.7%) listed an ethics elective. Although a single ethics course is insufficient for instilling an ethical approach to science, degree programs that model expectations through coursework point to the value of ethics in science. More training programs should prepare statisticians to consider the ethical dimensions of their work through required coursework. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.     

Efficacy,Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks

A growing body of research demonstrates that believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts. Despite this potentially critical role of efficacy beliefs, measures and their use vary wildly in climate change risk perception and communication research, making it hard to compare and learn from efficacy studies. To address this problem and advance our understanding of efficacy beliefs, this article makes three contributions. First, we present a theoretically motivated approach to measuring climate change mitigation efficacy, in light of diverse proposed, perceived, and previously researched strategies. Second, we test this in two national survey samples (Amazon's Mechanical Turk N = 405, GfK Knowledge Panel N = 1,820), demonstrating largely coherent beliefs by level of action and discrimination between types of efficacy. Four additive efficacy scales emerge: personal self‐efficacy, personal response efficacy, government and collective self‐efficacy, and government and collective response efficacy. Third, we employ the resulting efficacy scales in mediation models to test how well efficacy beliefs predict climate change policy support, controlling for specific knowledge, risk perceptions, and ideology, and allowing for mediation by concern. Concern fully mediates the relatively strong effects of perceived risk on policy support, but only partly mediates efficacy beliefs. Stronger government and collective response efficacy beliefs and personal self‐efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.     

Inequality Assessment by Probabilistic Development Indices

Social Indicators Research - This paper analyses the Human Development Index (HDI) time series from 2010 to 2017. An alternative index is studied, which combines the same components of the HDI by...     

Robust Designs in Generalized Linear Models: A Quantile Dispersion Graphs Approach

This article studies design selection for generalized linear models (GLMs) using the quantile dispersion graphs (QDGs) approach in the presence of misspecification in the link and/or linear predictor. The uncertainty in the linear predictor is represented by a unknown function and estimated using kriging. For addressing misspecified link functions, a generalized family of link functions is used. Numerical examples are shown to illustrate the proposed methodology.     

Reducing sample size needed for cox-proportional hazards model analysis using more efficient sampling method

Abstract

In general, survival data are time-to-event data, such as time to death, time to appearance of a tumor, or time to recurrence of a disease. Models for survival data have frequently been based on the proportional hazards model, proposed by Cox. The Cox model has intensive application in the field of social, medical, behavioral and public health sciences. In this paper we propose a more efficient sampling method of recruiting subjects for survival analysis. We propose using a Moving Extreme Ranked Set Sampling (MERSS) scheme with ranking based on an easy-to-evaluate baseline auxiliary variable known to be associated with survival time. This paper demonstrates that this approach provides a more powerful testing procedure as well as a more efficient estimate of hazard ratio than that based on simple random sampling (SRS). Theoretical derivation and simulation studies are provided. The Iowa 65+ Rural study data are used to illustrate the methods developed in this paper.     

PRODUCER AND CONSUMER RESPONSES TO GREEN HOUSING LABELS

We find “green” labels increase residential property values by an average of 5%. This premium varies by label stringency and across market segments. Builders respond to the stringency of labels by strategically incorporating green features to achieve higher ratings. This strategy seems reasonable as there is no market premium for green features that lead to scores between label rating cutoff values. These results raise important questions as to how green label policies should be designed in order to foster the supply of green features. Gradations of green attributes are influential, particularly for highly rated homes. The most stringent labels have the greatest role at the high price end of the market. (JEL Q20, Q40, R31)     

A majorization comparison of apportionment methods in proportional representation

From the inception of the proportional representation movement it has been an issue whether larger parties are favored at the expense of smaller parties in one apportionment of seats as compared to another apportionment. A number of methods have been proposed and are used in countries with a proportional representation system. These apportionment methods exhibit a regularity of order, as discussed in the present paper, that captures the preferential treatment of larger versus smaller parties. This order, namely majorization, permits the comparison of seat allocations in two apportionments. For divisor methods, we show that one method is majorized by another method if and only if their signpost ratios are increasing. This criterion is satisfied for the divisor methods with power-mean rounding, and for the divisor methods with stationary rounding. Majorization places the five traditional apportionment methods in the order as they are known to favor larger parties over smaller parties: Adams, Dean, Hill, Webster, and Jefferson. Received: 5 August 2000/Accepted: 24 October 2001