Propensity-Score Methods and the Lenin School

Cohen, Gidon

doi:10.1162/0022195054741262

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect size ( R 2 ), which is reported for each statistically significant finding, provides an index of the strength of the relationship between Indicator 13 compliance and each postsecondary outcome. Because both predictor and outcome variables were continuous, the linear regression statistics provided a robust analysis of the degree of the linear relationships for this nonexperimental educational research (Cohen, 2005; Creswell, 2003; Green & Salkind, 2010).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of IDEA Indicator 13 Compliance on Postsecondary Outcomes

Erickson

Noonan

Brussow

et al. 2013

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the revision of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, experts and service providers have been operating on the untested assumption that State Performance Plan Indicator 13 (transition Individualized Education Program [IEP] compliance) is a precursor to Indicator 14 (student outcomes of engagement in postsecondary education, training, and employment). This study analyzed the relationship between Indicator 13 and Indicator 14 through bivariate linear regression. The sample included student-level secondary transition data from 352 local education agencies (LEAs) in Missouri. A total of 2,123 IEP files were reviewed using a validated checklist for compliance to the IDEA transition requirements, known as Indicator 13. Indicator 14 was measured via survey responses from 4,994 high school graduates with IEPs. Results revealed statistically significant linear relationships between LEAs’ Indicator 13 compliance data and the percentage of graduates with IEPs who completed a semester of college or a career training program. Findings suggest that alternate approaches and indicators may be needed to improve postsecondary outcomes for students with and without IEPs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of IDEA Indicator 13 Compliance on Postsecondary Outcomes

Erickson

Noonan

Brussow

et al. 2013

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many researchers in these fields routinely use a data analysis technique called propensity scoring to select statistically equated experimental and control participants (Rosenbaum & Rubin, , ). Propensity scoring has become widely used in fields ranging from epidemiology (Little & Rubin, ) to medical and pharmaceutical research (Weitzen, Lapane, Toledano, Hume, & Mor, ) to sociology (e.g., Morgan & Harding, ) to economics (e.g., Dehejia & Wahba, ) and even to history (Cohen, ). Although Harder, Stuart, and Anthony () recently introduced this technique broadly as being relevant within psychology, we are aware of no organizational research that has used propensity scoring.…”

Section: Rubin's (1974) Causal Model As a Framework For Propensity Scmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing Treatment and Control Groups in Quasi‐Experiments: An Introduction to Propensity Scoring

Connelly

Sackett

Waters

2013

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational and applied sciences have long struggled with improving causal inference in quasi-experiments. We introduce organizational researchers to propensity scoring, a statistical technique that has become popular in other applied sciences as a means for improving internal validity. Propensity scoring statistically models how individuals in a quasi-experiment have been assigned to conditions in order to estimate treatment effects among individuals with approximately equal probabilities of receiving the treatment. If propensity scores are created from relevant covariates, matching on the propensity score makes treatment assignment ignorable and approximates a true experimental design. We illustrate how matching on the propensity score can be applied by using 2 examples: examining the effects of online instruction and estimating the benefits of preparatory coaching for the SAT. In both cases, propensityscoring methods effectively reduced inequivalence between treatment and control groups on many variables. Propensity scoring stands out as a valuable technique capable of improving causal inference from many of organizational research's quasi-experiments.Organizational researchers are frequently called on to evaluate the effectiveness of organizational interventions, and circumstances frequently impose real-world limitations on the designs available to make these evaluations. Many such designs fall within the broad category of "quasiexperiments" because, although some individuals receive the intervention (e.g., a new compensation system or a new training course) while others We thank

show abstract

“…For example, both of the protagonists in the Cold War pursued political influence through student exchange programs. On the Soviet side, students who studied at the International Lenin School in Moscow were more likely to achieve prominent positions within the communist party in Great Britain during the 1920s through 1940s (Cohen 2005:229–230). On the US side, US‐hosted exchanges exposed future political leaders within the Soviet Union to the freedoms and prosperity found under a democratic government and free‐market system.…”

Section: Student Exchange Programs As Transnational Channels Of Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs 1980â2006

Atkinson

2010

Foreign Policy Analysis

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democratic governance depends not only on the building of democratic institutions but also on citizens’ knowledge about how these institutions should function in their everyday lives. I argue that US‐hosted educational exchange programs are one mechanism whereby citizens of nondemocratic states might experience life firsthand in a democratic country. Their experiences may impact the political institutions and influence political behavior in their home countries. In order for this process to take place, I argue that at least three contextual conditions are important: (i) the depth and extent of social interactions that occur while abroad, (ii) the sharing of a sense of community or common identity between participants and their hosts, and (iii) the attainment of a politically influential position by the exchange participant when they return home. In this article, I test these hypotheses and find support for what advocates of soft power often contend: US‐hosted exchange programs can play an important role in the diffusion of liberal values and practices across the borders of authoritarian states.

show abstract

Propensity-Score Methods and the Lenin School

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

The Impact of IDEA Indicator 13 Compliance on Postsecondary Outcomes

The Impact of IDEA Indicator 13 Compliance on Postsecondary Outcomes

Balancing Treatment and Control Groups in Quasi‐Experiments: An Introduction to Propensity Scoring

Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs 1980â2006

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Propensity-Score Methods and the Lenin School

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

The Impact of IDEA Indicator 13 Compliance on Postsecondary Outcomes

The Impact of IDEA Indicator 13 Compliance on Postsecondary Outcomes

Balancing Treatment and Control Groups in Quasi‐Experiments: An Introduction to Propensity Scoring

Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs 1980â2006

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs 1980â2006