1. Introduction and Overview. 2. Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers. 3. Detecting and Assessing Collinearity. 4. Applications and Remedies. 5. Research Issues and Directions for Extensions. Bibliography. Author Index. Subject Index.

Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity

/pdf/social-capital-a-theory-of-social-structure-and-action-4m7poq6byy.pdf

Social capital: a theory of social structure and action

Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge

Resena de la obra de Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth y Leah Melani Christian: Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys. The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/7287796.pdf

Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method: reseña

This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

The Answer Is 17 Years, What Is the Question

While attention has been paid to a few cities and counties exhibiting effective performance measurement systems, most US local governments have been active in the development and use of performance measurement for several decades This research examines the effects of performance-measurement information on budgetary decision making, communication, and other operations of US local governments Data are drawn from a national survey of city and county administrators and budgeters that included nearly 300 governments Findings indicate the use of performance measurement by local departments is pervasive, although survey respondents are less enthusiastic about measurement effectiveness Study results show subtle distinctions between city and county officials in their use of performance measurement for budgetary purposes and processes Research findings indicate the consistent, active integration of measures throughout the budget process is important in determining real budget and communication effects in local governments

/pdf/models-of-performance-measurement-use-in-local-governments-3ofd0dwvma.pdf

Models of Performance‐Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects

The current wave of budgeting reform focuses on the performance of government agencies and programs and is reflected in state efforts to introduce performance-based budgeting (PBB). In the ideal, this budget system requires measurement of results, outcomes, and impacts. In an article titled "Managing Public Finances Like the Future Matters," King (1995) suggests several reasons for this renewed interest in budget reform, including: * Government must be driven by citizen desires and needs, not government rules and regulations. * Taxpayers will pay for results, not efforts. * Government must better communicate progress toward goals and objectives. Actual performance-based budgeting systems may have a variety of goals. For example, they may or may not require measurement of outcomes. They may support strategic planning or focus on measurement development. It is the goal of this article to find out how many states have adopted some version of performance-based budgeting. It remains for future research to see how well these reforms are accomplishing overall objectives and whether some forms of performance-based budgeting work better than others. We surveyed the 50 states to determine the existence of legislative or administrative initiatives requiring performance-based budgeting. We define performance-based budgeting as requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission, goals and objectives, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provides meaning information about program outcomes. Performance-based budgeting may also require an assessment of agency progress toward specified targets. Several recent pieces of research inventory the existence and use of performance measures in the states (National Association of State Budget Officers, 1995; Fountain, 1997; see also case analyses of local, state, and federal experience with performance measurement provided by ASPA's Government Accountability and Accomplishment Task Force, 1996). Findings from these studies do not describe the legal or administrative requirements for the states to conduct performance-based budgeting as defined above. Methodology This study is based on a literature view and a survey of state administrators. The survey of executive and legislative budget offices was conducted by telephone in 1996 and 1997. These budgeters were asked about legislation (in place or pending) that has performance-based requirements or administrative guidelines for the state. Responses were received from budgeters; (usually the director or deputy director of the budget office) in all 50 states. Those answering that legislation existed were asked to send or fax a copy. Those states that did not have any legislation, even pending, were asked if an executive order or other administrative, guidelines were in place regarding performance-based budgeting. We asked these budgeters to send us budget guidelines or instructions. We asked a number of follow-up questions, including the following: * Who is responsible fix implementing performance-based budgeting and specifically, operationalizing measures? * What is the time frame for implementing performance-based budgeting? * Are there incentives (or disincentives) that promote the use of performance-based budgeting? * What oversight capacity is provided by the legislation? In this article, we review performance-based budgeting legislative and/or administrative guidelines, for performance-based budgeting as well as incentives, disincentives, timelines, and reporting and process requirements on the part of state agencies, central budget bureaus, and newly established oversight offices. Our research is more inclusive than past efforts, for we examine both law and administrative requirements short of law. Findings from this research indicate that a significant portion of performance-based budgeting activities at the state level occur without legislation. …

The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50

Given that a majority of states have had some sort of performance-budgeting initiative on the books for several years, how has implementation of such reform progressed? To answer this question, we surveyed legislative and executive budgeters from the 50 states, asking them for their impressions of performance-budgeting implementation in their state. Specifically, we asked these budget officers about the reasons for introducing performance budgeting in their state; the types of activities required of their system; responsible oversight bodies; extent of application across state agencies and departments; and perceived levels of effectiveness and problems experienced with implementation of the budget reform. Our findings indicate that implementation of performance-based budgeting systems is proceeding slowly. While there are some benefits to highlight, results show that implementing performance budgeting is not without problems-perhaps the greatest being differing perceptions of use and success among budget players, particularly across branches of government.

Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches

Enthusiasm for using Twitter as a source of data in the social sciences extends to measuring the impact of research with Twitter data being a key component in the new altmetrics approach. In this paper, we examine tweets containing links to research articles in the field of dentistry to assess the extent to which tweeting about scientific papers signifies engagement with, attention to, or consumption of scientific literature. The main goal is to better comprehend the role Twitter plays in scholarly communication and the potential value of tweet counts as traces of broader engagement with scientific literature. In particular, the pattern of tweeting to the top ten most tweeted scientific dental articles and of tweeting by accounts is examined. The ideal that tweeting about scholarly articles represents curating and informing about state-of-the-art appears not to be realized in practice. We see much presumably human tweeting almost entirely mechanical and devoid of original thought, no evidence of conversation, tweets generated by monomania, duplicate tweeting from many accounts under centralized professional management and tweets generated by bots. Some accounts exemplify the ideal, but they represent less than 10% of tweets. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from twitter data is swamped by the mechanical nature of the bulk of tweeting behavior. In light of these results, we discuss the compatibility of Twitter with the research enterprise as well as some of the financial incentives behind these patterns.

https://works.bepress.com/diana_hicks/51/download/

The unbearable emptiness of tweeting-About journal articles.

A modern budget reform, performance-based budgeting (PBB) emphasizes the measurement of government performance by agencies and public servants. In this article we define PBB as requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission, goals and objectives, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provide meaningful information about program outcomes. Performance-based budgeting requirements are now pervasive in the states. Of forty-seven states with PBB requirements, thirty-one have legislated the process to be conducted, while sixteen have initiated the reform through budget guidelines or instructions.1What remains unknown, yet of vital interest to state administrators, their staff, legislators, and citizens, regards implementation status of PBB systems. How many states are utilizing a PBB process as prescribed by law or administrative directive? And if PBB has been implemented, has it been successful regarding improvement of agency effectiveness and decision making about spending? Perhaps most importantly, has PBB influenced appropriation decisions?.



This research is based on responses to a mail survey of executive and legislative budgeters regarding the PBB system established in their state. Results discussed in this article consider budgeters’ response about PBB implementation status and effectiveness as conducted. We find that there are differing perceptions across the branches of government regarding both the extent of PBB implementation as well as its success. Results show that states with better-known PBB systems have not necessarily realized greater success in terms of effectiveness from this budget reform than states with less popularly known systems, at least as perceived by the budgeters included in this article.

Julia Melkers

Papers

Models of Performance‐Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects

The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50

Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches

The unbearable emptiness of tweeting-About journal articles.

Implementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success