Users make lasting judgments about a website's appeal within a split second of seeing it for the first time. This first impression is influential enough to later affect their opinions of a site's usability and trustworthiness. In this paper, we demonstrate a means to predict the initial impression of aesthetics based on perceptual models of a website's colorfulness and visual complexity. In an online study, we collected ratings of colorfulness, visual complexity, and visual appeal of a set of 450 websites from 548 volunteers. Based on these data, we developed computational models that accurately measure the perceived visual complexity and colorfulness of website screenshots. In combination with demographic variables such as a user's education level and age, these models explain approximately half of the variance in the ratings of aesthetic appeal given after viewing a website for 500ms only.

To identify links among professional development, teacher knowledge, practice, and student achievement, researchers have called for study designs that allow causal inferences and that examine relationships among features of interventions and multiple outcomes. In a randomized experiment implemented in six states with over 270 elementary teachers and 7,000 students, this project compared three related but systematically varied teacher interventions—Teaching Cases, Looking at Student Work, and Metacognitive Analysis—along with no‐treatment controls. The three courses contained identical science content components, but differed in the ways they incorporated analysis of learner thinking and of teaching, making it possible to measure effects of these features on teacher and student outcomes. Interventions were delivered by staff developers trained to lead the teacher courses in their regions. Each course improved teachers' and students' scores on selected‐response science tests well beyond those of controls, and effects were maintained a year later. Student achievement also improved significantly for English language learners in both the study year and follow‐up, and treatment effects did not differ based on sex or race/ethnicity. However, only Teaching Cases and Looking at Student Work courses improved the accuracy and completeness of students' written justifications of test answers in the follow‐up, and only Teaching Cases had sustained effects on teachers' written justifications. Thus, the content component in common across the three courses had powerful effects on teachers' and students' ability to choose correct test answers, but their ability to explain why answers were correct only improved when the professional development incorporated analysis of student conceptual understandings and implications for instruction; metacognitive analysis of teachers' own learning did not improve student justifications either year. Findings suggest investing in professional development that integrates content learning with analysis of student learning and teaching rather than advanced content or teacher metacognition alone. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 333–362, 2012

Summary. Experimenters often use post-stratification to adjust estimates. Post-stratification is akin to blocking, except that the number of treated units in each stratum is a random variable because stratification occurs after treatment assignment. We analyse both post-stratification and blocking under the Neyman-Rubin model and compare the efficiency of these designs. We derive the variances for a post-stratified estimator and a simple difference-in-means estimator under different randomization schemes. Post-stratification is nearly as efficient as blocking: the difference in their variances is of the order of 1=n 2 , with a constant depending on treatment proportion. Post-stratification is therefore a reasonable alternative to blocking when blocking is not feasible. However, in finite samples, post-stratification can increase variance if the number of strata is large and the strata are poorly chosen. To examine why the estimators' variances are different, we extend our results by conditioning on the observed number of treated units in each stratum. Conditioning also provides more accurate variance estimates because it takes into account how close (or far) a realized random sample is from a comparable blocked experiment. We then show that the practical substance of our results remains under an infinite population sampling model. Finally, we provide an analysis of an actual experiment to illustrate our analytical results.

Applied researchers are increasingly interested in whether and how treatment effects vary in randomized evaluations, especially variation that is not explained by observed covariates. We propose a model-free approach for testing for the presence of such unexplained variation. To use this randomization-based approach, we must address the fact that the average treatment effect, which is generally the object of interest in randomized experiments, actually acts as a nuisance parameter in this setting.We explore potential solutions and advocate for a method that guarantees valid tests in finite samples despite this nuisance. We also show how this method readily extends to testing for heterogeneity beyond a given model, which can be useful for assessing the sufficiency of a given scientific theory. We finally apply our method to the National Head Start impact study, which is a large-scale randomized evaluation of a Federal preschool programme, finding that there is indeed significant unexplained treatment effect variation.

"M-Bias," as it is called in the epidemiologic literature, is the bias introduced by conditioning on a pretreatment covariate due to a particular "M-Structure" between two latent factors, an observed treatment, an outcome, and a "collider." This potential source of bias, which can occur even when the treatment and the outcome are not confounded, has been a source of considerable controversy. We here present formulae for identifying under which circumstances biases are inflated or reduced. In particular, we show that the magnitude of M-Bias in linear structural equation models tends to be relatively small compared to confounding bias, suggesting that it is generally not a serious concern in many applied settings. These theoretical results are consistent with recent empirical findings from simulation studies. We also generalize the M-Bias setting (1) to allow for the correlation between the latent factors to be nonzero and (2) to allow for the collider to be a confounder between the treatment and the outcome. These results demonstrate that mild deviations from the M-Structure tend to increase confounding bias more rapidly than M-Bias, suggesting that choosing to condition on any given covariate is generally the superior choice. As an application, we re-examine a controversial example between Professors Donald Rubin and Judea Pearl.

Early childhood education research often compares a group of children who receive the intervention of interest to a group of children who receive care in a range of different care settings. In this paper, we estimate differential impacts of an early childhood intervention by alternative care setting, using data from the Head Start Impact Study, a large-scale randomized evaluation. To do so, we utilize a Bayesian principal stratification framework to estimate separate impacts for two types of Compliers: those children who would otherwise be in other center-based care when assigned to control and those who would otherwise be in home-based care. We find strong, positive short-term effects of Head Start on receptive vocabulary for those Compliers who would otherwise be in home-based care. By contrast, we find no meaningful impact of Head Start on vocabulary for those Compliers who would otherwise be in other center-based care. Our findings suggest that alternative care type is a potentially important source of variation in early childhood education interventions.

The popularity of online surveys has increased the prominence of using weights that capture units' probabilities of inclusion for claims of representativeness. Yet, much uncertainty remains regarding how these weights should be employed in analysis of survey experiments: Should they be used or ignored? If they are used, which estimators are preferred? We offer practical advice, rooted in the Neyman-Rubin model, for researchers producing and working with survey experimental data. We examine simple, efficient estimators for analyzing these data, and give formulae for their biases and variances. We provide simulations that examine these estimators as well as real examples from experiments administered online through YouGov. We find that for examining the existence of population treatment effects using highquality, broadly representative samples recruited by top online survey firms, sample quantities, which do not rely on weights, are often sufficient. We found that Sample Average Treatment Effect (SATE) estimates did not appear to differ substantially from their weighted counterparts, and they avoided the substantial loss of statistical power that accompanies weighting. When precise estimates of Population Average Treatment Effects (PATE) are essential, we analytically show post-stratifying on survey weights and/or covariates highly correlated with the outcome to be a conservative choice. While we show these substantial gains in simulations, we find limited evidence of them in practice.

This paper presents the first longitudinal study of sex disparities in COVID-19 cases and mortalities across U.S. states, derived from the unique 13-month dataset of the U.S. Gender/Sex COVID-19 Data Tracker. To analyze sex disparities, weekly case and mortality rates by sex and mortality rate ratios and rate differences were computed for each U.S. state, and a multilevel crossed-effects conditional logistic binomial regression model was fitted to estimate the variation of the sex disparity in mortality over time and across states. Results demonstrate considerable variation in the sex disparity in COVID-19 cases and mortalities over time and between states. These data suggest that the sex disparity, when present, is modest, and likely varies in relation to context-sensitive variables, which may include health behaviors, preexisting health status, occupation, race/ethnicity, and other markers of social experience.