Lines through the origin—is NO INT the answer?

The fitting of a straight line that must pass through (0, 0) is a frequently encountered application of linear regression. Many computer packages provide a least-squares option sometimes identified as NO INT, or even NOINT, or as ‘suppressing the intercept’. Often these procedures are invalid or do not correspond to the most suitable model. This paper questions the least-squares-line approach and suggests some alternatives. Two measures are proposed for comparing the fit of alternative models.     

Fast retraction of evidence in a probabilistic expert system

We present and justify a propagation algorithm to facilitate the simultaneous calculation, for every node in a probabilistic exper system of the distribution of the associated random quantity, conditional on all the evidence obtained about the remaining nodes.     

Estimation of parameters for rounded data from non-normal distributions

This paper is concerned with how standard estimation procedures perform in terms of eficiency for non-normal rounded data. Previous research has shown that the loss in eficiency due to rounding normal data is small. However, evidence from the non-normal distribution considered in this paper suggests, if rounding is coarse or the distribution is very skewed the loss in efficiency due to rounding can be considerable.     

Screening for patients with alcohol problems: severity of patients identified by the CAGE.

Primary care physicians are well situated to identify patients with substance abuse problems and motivate them to seek appropriate assistance, but active programs are the exception. A study in a community setting was undertaken to assess the CAGE (the first letters of key words in a series of four questions about drinking: cut down; annoyed; guilty; and eye-opener), instrument in the routine screening for alcohol problems in both new and established patients. The screening process identified subjects for a pilot evaluation of a motivational interview designed to encourage problem-solving behavior. This article focuses on the screening results and the use of the CAGE instrument. During June and July of 1990, 687 patients of two primary care physicians belonging to a large group practice were asked to complete a health questionnaire that included the CAGE. Those who responded affirmatively to at least two of the four CAGE questions were requested to participate in follow-up assessment of problems associated with alcohol and health. The type and severity of alcohol problems experienced by patients who scored positive on the CAGE are described. Prevalence of a positive score on the CAGE was 8.6 percent with males, smokers, and blue collar and unemployed persons being more likely to score positive. The positive predictive value was .68. Primarily, persons with moderate alcohol problems were identified. Results show that the CAGE instrument is a useful screening device for identifying those with mild to moderate substance abuse problems, increasing the opportunity for intervention prior to serious medical complications. The instrument is easily administered, and has demonstrated relatively high levels of sensitivity and specificity. When combined with assessment and motivational interviews, the CAGE shows promise in the secondary prevention of substance abuse and related health problems.     

Working with Deaf People

Whilst 17% of the population experience some degree of hearing loss, sociology has largely neglected the study of services to this group. This article attempts to move the debate from a sociology of the deaf community to a sociology of deafness that includes an examination of how professionals define the needs of hearing impaired people. Despite differences between different constructions, deafness workers offer a combination of social work, information, and interpreting services. Practice rules have been developed by deafness workers to control workloads, and to work in their preferred way. This article is based on a multi-layered approach with a contextual analysis, a survey of 123 deafness workers, 32 semi-structured interviews, and my own personal experience of deafness work.