andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1539 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Andrew Perrin nails it : Twice a year, like clockwork, the ethics cops at the IRB [institutional review board, the group on campus that has to approve research involving human subjects] take a break from deciding whether or not radioactive isotopes can be administered to prison populations to cure restless-leg syndrome to dream up some fancy new way in which participating in an automated telephone poll might cause harm. Perrin adds: The list of exemptions to IRB review is too short and, more importantly, contains no guiding principle as to what makes exempt. . . . [and] Even exemptions require approval by the IRB. He also voices a thought I’ve had many times, which is that there are all sorts of things you or I or anyone else can do on the street (for example, go up to people and ask them personal questions, drop objects and see if people pick them up, stage fights with our friends to see the reactions of bystanders, etc etc etc) but for which we have to go through an IRB
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Perrin adds: The list of exemptions to IRB review is too short and, more importantly, contains no guiding principle as to what makes exempt. [sent-2, score-0.425]
2 Recently a high school student contacted me about a research project he has, involving online surveys. [sent-8, score-0.455]
3 But he can’t do it through the Columbia IRB because he’s not a Columbia student (and it’s his project, not mine, so it doesn’t help that I work here. [sent-13, score-0.09]
4 At the university, endless hours are wasted on getting permissions to do innocuous surveys. [sent-17, score-0.352]
5 Meanwhile, what about dangerous medical experiments, the kind of study where a drug company crams some illegal aliens into a bunch of Miami hotel rooms ? [sent-18, score-0.374]
6 Don’t worry, those guys use commercial IRB’s that approve everything. [sent-19, score-0.239]
7 I do have problems with the ethics of surveys that don’t pay their participants. [sent-21, score-0.14]
8 But that has nothing to do with the questions that are being asked. [sent-22, score-0.073]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('irb', 0.518), ('exemptions', 0.241), ('perrin', 0.241), ('approve', 0.164), ('ethics', 0.14), ('etc', 0.139), ('involving', 0.113), ('isotopes', 0.11), ('bystanders', 0.11), ('permissions', 0.11), ('rooms', 0.103), ('radioactive', 0.103), ('guiding', 0.103), ('administered', 0.103), ('columbia', 0.099), ('voices', 0.099), ('aliens', 0.099), ('cops', 0.099), ('bogus', 0.099), ('hotel', 0.095), ('project', 0.094), ('nails', 0.09), ('fights', 0.09), ('student', 0.09), ('campus', 0.088), ('syndrome', 0.088), ('miami', 0.086), ('automated', 0.086), ('participating', 0.085), ('innocuous', 0.085), ('school', 0.085), ('cure', 0.083), ('prison', 0.083), ('review', 0.081), ('wasted', 0.08), ('illegal', 0.077), ('endless', 0.077), ('fancy', 0.077), ('dream', 0.077), ('deciding', 0.076), ('importantly', 0.076), ('institutional', 0.075), ('telephone', 0.075), ('commercial', 0.075), ('objects', 0.074), ('populations', 0.074), ('questions', 0.073), ('approval', 0.073), ('contacted', 0.073), ('roles', 0.071)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 1539 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-18-IRB nightmares
Introduction: Andrew Perrin nails it : Twice a year, like clockwork, the ethics cops at the IRB [institutional review board, the group on campus that has to approve research involving human subjects] take a break from deciding whether or not radioactive isotopes can be administered to prison populations to cure restless-leg syndrome to dream up some fancy new way in which participating in an automated telephone poll might cause harm. Perrin adds: The list of exemptions to IRB review is too short and, more importantly, contains no guiding principle as to what makes exempt. . . . [and] Even exemptions require approval by the IRB. He also voices a thought I’ve had many times, which is that there are all sorts of things you or I or anyone else can do on the street (for example, go up to people and ask them personal questions, drop objects and see if people pick them up, stage fights with our friends to see the reactions of bystanders, etc etc etc) but for which we have to go through an IRB
2 0.32400325 1055 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Data sharing update
Introduction: Fred Oswald reports that Sian Beilock sent him sufficient amounts of raw data from her research study so allow him to answer his questions about the large effects that were observed. This sort of collegiality is central to the collective scientific enterprise. The bad news is that IRB’s are still getting in the way. Beilock was very helpful but she had to work within the constraints of her IRB, which apparently advised her not to share data—even if de-identified—without getting lots more permissions. Oswald writes: It is a little concerning that the IRB bars the sharing of de-identified data, particularly in light of the specific guidelines of the journal Science, which appears to say that when you submit a study to the journal for publication, you are allowing for the sharing of de-identified data — unless you expressly say otherwise at the point that you submit the paper for consideration. Again, I don’t blame Beilock and Ramirez—they appear to have been as helpful as
3 0.17978682 35 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-16-Another update on the spam email study
Introduction: I think youall are probably getting sick of this by now so I’ll put it all below the fold. Akinola Modupe and Katherine Milkman responded to my email about their study : We want to clarify the reason we believe that the use of deception and a lack of informed consent were appropriate and ethical for this research study. In this project, we were studying how the timing of a decision affects discrimination based on race and/or gender. The emails all participants in our study received were identical except for a) the sender’s name (we used 20 names that pretesting revealed were strongly associated with being either Caucasian, Black, Indian, Chinese or Hispanic, as well as associated with being male or female) and b) whether the meeting requested was for today or for a week from today. Recipients were randomly selected and were randomly assigned to one of the race/gender/timing conditions. This study design will allow us to test for baseline levels of discrimination in acade
4 0.17523782 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
Introduction: As someone who relies strongly on survey research, it’s good for me to be reminded that some surveys are useful, some are useless, but one thing they almost all have in common is . . . they waste the respondents’ time. I thought of this after receiving the following email, which I shall reproduce here. My own comments appear after. Recently, you received an email from a student asking for 10 minutes of your time to discuss your Ph.D. program (the body of the email appears below). We are emailing you today to debrief you on the actual purpose of that email, as it was part of a research study. We sincerely hope our study did not cause you any disruption and we apologize if you were at all inconvenienced. Our hope is that this letter will provide a sufficient explanation of the purpose and design of our study to alleviate any concerns you may have about your involvement. We want to thank you for your time and for reading further if you are interested in understanding why you rece
Introduction: Alex Tabarrok reports on an analysis from the Los Angeles Times of teacher performance (as measured by so-called value-added analysis, which is basically compares teachers based on their students’ average test scores at the end of the year, after controlling for pre-test scores. It’s well known that some teachers are much better than others, but, as Alex points out, what’s striking about the L.A. Times study is that they are publishing the estimates for individual teachers . For example, this: Nice graphics, too. To me, this illustrates one of the big advantages of research in a non-academic environment. If you’re writing an article for the L.A. Times, you can do what you want (within the limits of the law). If you’re doing the same research study at a university, there are a million restrictions. For example, from an official documen t, “The primary purpose of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects participati
6 0.11263885 1866 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-21-Recently in the sister blog
7 0.1096361 882 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-31-Meanwhile, on the sister blog . . .
8 0.099315152 1054 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-12-More frustrations trying to replicate an analysis published in a reputable journal
9 0.087598413 1791 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-07-Scatterplot charades!
10 0.081675962 411 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Ethical concerns in medical trials
11 0.078272775 462 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-10-Who’s holding the pen?, The split screen, and other ideas for one-on-one instruction
12 0.074821837 1237 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-30-Statisticians: When We Teach, We Don’t Practice What We Preach
13 0.068154112 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
14 0.067736655 1353 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-30-Question 20 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
15 0.067607522 267 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-09-This Friday afternoon: Applied Statistics Center mini-conference on risk perception
16 0.066130258 344 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-Story time
17 0.066101253 1117 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-13-What are the important issues in ethics and statistics? I’m looking for your input!
18 0.06514097 605 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-09-Does it feel like cheating when I do this? Variation in ethical standards and expectations
19 0.064630195 226 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-23-More on those L.A. Times estimates of teacher effectiveness
20 0.063115939 1620 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-12-“Teaching effectiveness” as another dimension in cognitive ability
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.131), (1, -0.071), (2, -0.023), (3, -0.036), (4, 0.02), (5, 0.075), (6, 0.022), (7, 0.033), (8, -0.038), (9, 0.013), (10, -0.003), (11, 0.012), (12, 0.007), (13, -0.019), (14, -0.011), (15, -0.018), (16, 0.063), (17, -0.0), (18, 0.007), (19, 0.034), (20, -0.021), (21, 0.006), (22, -0.007), (23, -0.028), (24, 0.009), (25, -0.013), (26, 0.001), (27, -0.004), (28, -0.014), (29, 0.032), (30, -0.044), (31, -0.004), (32, -0.01), (33, 0.059), (34, -0.005), (35, -0.02), (36, 0.032), (37, 0.004), (38, -0.008), (39, 0.009), (40, 0.053), (41, 0.007), (42, -0.035), (43, 0.006), (44, -0.039), (45, 0.022), (46, -0.0), (47, 0.017), (48, 0.011), (49, -0.006)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94734877 1539 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-18-IRB nightmares
Introduction: Andrew Perrin nails it : Twice a year, like clockwork, the ethics cops at the IRB [institutional review board, the group on campus that has to approve research involving human subjects] take a break from deciding whether or not radioactive isotopes can be administered to prison populations to cure restless-leg syndrome to dream up some fancy new way in which participating in an automated telephone poll might cause harm. Perrin adds: The list of exemptions to IRB review is too short and, more importantly, contains no guiding principle as to what makes exempt. . . . [and] Even exemptions require approval by the IRB. He also voices a thought I’ve had many times, which is that there are all sorts of things you or I or anyone else can do on the street (for example, go up to people and ask them personal questions, drop objects and see if people pick them up, stage fights with our friends to see the reactions of bystanders, etc etc etc) but for which we have to go through an IRB
Introduction: Alex Tabarrok reports on an analysis from the Los Angeles Times of teacher performance (as measured by so-called value-added analysis, which is basically compares teachers based on their students’ average test scores at the end of the year, after controlling for pre-test scores. It’s well known that some teachers are much better than others, but, as Alex points out, what’s striking about the L.A. Times study is that they are publishing the estimates for individual teachers . For example, this: Nice graphics, too. To me, this illustrates one of the big advantages of research in a non-academic environment. If you’re writing an article for the L.A. Times, you can do what you want (within the limits of the law). If you’re doing the same research study at a university, there are a million restrictions. For example, from an official documen t, “The primary purpose of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects participati
3 0.77696657 35 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-16-Another update on the spam email study
Introduction: I think youall are probably getting sick of this by now so I’ll put it all below the fold. Akinola Modupe and Katherine Milkman responded to my email about their study : We want to clarify the reason we believe that the use of deception and a lack of informed consent were appropriate and ethical for this research study. In this project, we were studying how the timing of a decision affects discrimination based on race and/or gender. The emails all participants in our study received were identical except for a) the sender’s name (we used 20 names that pretesting revealed were strongly associated with being either Caucasian, Black, Indian, Chinese or Hispanic, as well as associated with being male or female) and b) whether the meeting requested was for today or for a week from today. Recipients were randomly selected and were randomly assigned to one of the race/gender/timing conditions. This study design will allow us to test for baseline levels of discrimination in acade
4 0.76709926 1191 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-01-Hoe noem je?
Introduction: Gerrit Storms reports on an interesting linguistic research project in which you can participate! Here’s the description: Over the past few weeks, we have been trying to set up a scientific study that is important for many researchers interested in words, word meaning, semantics, and cognitive science in general. It is a huge word association project, in which people are asked to participate in a small task that doesn’t last longer than 5 minutes. Our goal is to build a global word association network that contains connections between about 40,000 words, the size of the lexicon of an average adult. Setting up such a network might learn us a lot about semantic memory, how it develops, and maybe also about how it can deteriorate (like in Alzheimer’s disease). Most people enjoy doing the task, but we need thousands of participants to succeed. Up till today, we found about 53,000 participants willing to do the little task, but we need more subjects. That is why we address you. Would
Introduction: As someone who relies strongly on survey research, it’s good for me to be reminded that some surveys are useful, some are useless, but one thing they almost all have in common is . . . they waste the respondents’ time. I thought of this after receiving the following email, which I shall reproduce here. My own comments appear after. Recently, you received an email from a student asking for 10 minutes of your time to discuss your Ph.D. program (the body of the email appears below). We are emailing you today to debrief you on the actual purpose of that email, as it was part of a research study. We sincerely hope our study did not cause you any disruption and we apologize if you were at all inconvenienced. Our hope is that this letter will provide a sufficient explanation of the purpose and design of our study to alleviate any concerns you may have about your involvement. We want to thank you for your time and for reading further if you are interested in understanding why you rece
7 0.75122106 740 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-01-The “cushy life” of a University of Illinois sociology professor
8 0.74782306 326 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-07-Peer pressure, selection, and educational reform
9 0.74197203 1657 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-06-Lee Nguyen Tran Kim Song Shimazaki
10 0.73820871 732 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-26-What Do We Learn from Narrow Randomized Studies?
11 0.72673428 71 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-07-Pay for an A?
12 0.71996623 605 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-09-Does it feel like cheating when I do this? Variation in ethical standards and expectations
13 0.71455657 411 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Ethical concerns in medical trials
14 0.71069956 1803 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-14-Why girls do better in school
15 0.69830841 481 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-22-The Jumpstart financial literacy survey and the different purposes of tests
16 0.69431752 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
17 0.69169867 1620 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-12-“Teaching effectiveness” as another dimension in cognitive ability
18 0.68747145 968 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-21-Could I use a statistics coach?
19 0.68655294 1688 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-22-That claim that students whose parents pay for more of college get worse grades
20 0.68458468 578 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-17-Credentialism, elite employment, and career aspirations
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.016), (15, 0.039), (16, 0.08), (21, 0.069), (24, 0.094), (29, 0.187), (42, 0.016), (43, 0.019), (52, 0.01), (56, 0.019), (77, 0.015), (86, 0.022), (90, 0.014), (99, 0.239)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94652152 651 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-06-My talk at Northwestern University tomorrow (Thursday)
Introduction: Of Beauty, Sex, and Power: Statistical Challenges in Estimating Small Effects. At the Institute of Policy Research, Thurs 7 Apr 2011, 3.30pm . Regular blog readers know all about this topic. ( Here are the slides.) But, rest assured, I don’t just mock. I also offer constructive suggestions. My last talk at Northwestern was fifteen years ago. Actually, I gave two lectures then, in the process of being turned down for a job enjoying their chilly Midwestern hospitality. P.S. I searched on the web and also found this announcement which gives the wrong title.
2 0.94342422 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
Introduction: I received the following bizarre email: Apr 26, 2013 Dear Andrew Gelman You are receiving this notice because you have published a paper with the American Journal of Public Health within the last few years. Currently, content on the Journal is closed access for the first 2 years after publication, and then freely accessible thereafter. On June 1, 2013, the Journal will be extending its closed-access window from 2 years to 10 years. Extending this window will close public access to your article via the Journal web portal, but public access will still be available via the National Institutes of Health PubMedCentral web portal. If you would like to make your article available to the public for free on the Journal web portal, we are extending this limited time offer of open access at a steeply discounted rate of $1,000 per article. If interested in purchasing this access, please contact Brian Selzer, Publications Editor, at brian.selzer@apha.org Additionally, you may purchas
3 0.91208053 1687 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-21-Workshop on science communication for graduate students
Introduction: Nathan Sanders writes: Applications are now open for the Communicating Science 2013 workshop (http://workshop.astrobites.com/), to be held in Cambridge, MA on June 13-15th, 2013. Graduate students at US institutions in all fields of science and engineering are encouraged to apply – funding is available for travel expenses and accommodations. The application can be found here: http://workshop.astrobites.org/application Participants will build the communication skills that technical professionals need to express complex ideas to their peers, experts in other fields, and the general public. There will be panel discussions on the following topics: * Engaging Non-Scientific Audiences * Science Writing for a Cause * Communicating Science Through Fiction * Sharing Science with Scientists * The World of Non-Academic Publishing * Communicating using Multimedia and the Web In addition to these discussions, ample time is allotted for interacting with the experts and with att
same-blog 4 0.91186047 1539 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-18-IRB nightmares
Introduction: Andrew Perrin nails it : Twice a year, like clockwork, the ethics cops at the IRB [institutional review board, the group on campus that has to approve research involving human subjects] take a break from deciding whether or not radioactive isotopes can be administered to prison populations to cure restless-leg syndrome to dream up some fancy new way in which participating in an automated telephone poll might cause harm. Perrin adds: The list of exemptions to IRB review is too short and, more importantly, contains no guiding principle as to what makes exempt. . . . [and] Even exemptions require approval by the IRB. He also voices a thought I’ve had many times, which is that there are all sorts of things you or I or anyone else can do on the street (for example, go up to people and ask them personal questions, drop objects and see if people pick them up, stage fights with our friends to see the reactions of bystanders, etc etc etc) but for which we have to go through an IRB
5 0.9038614 764 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-Examining US Legislative process with “Many Bills”
Introduction: This is Many Bills , a visualization of US bills by IBM: I learned about it a few days ago from Irene Ros at Foo Camp . It definitely looks better than my own analysis of US Senate bills .
6 0.90063322 1034 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-29-World Class Speakers and Entertainers
7 0.89984107 1940 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-16-A poll that throws away data???
8 0.8781513 1344 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-25-Question 15 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
9 0.87077808 1533 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-14-If x is correlated with y, then y is correlated with x
11 0.86626297 1491 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-10-Update on Levitt paper on child car seats
12 0.85565209 1392 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-Occam
13 0.85470974 1024 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-23-Of hypothesis tests and Unitarians
14 0.85459358 2133 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-13-Flexibility is good
15 0.85409403 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
16 0.84299701 868 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-24-Blogs vs. real journalism
17 0.84103215 1345 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-26-Question 16 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
18 0.83585763 1742 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-27-What is “explanation”?
19 0.83317077 1341 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-24-Question 14 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
20 0.82609278 639 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-31-Bayes: radical, liberal, or conservative?