National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Final Comments
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×

References

Bohrnstedt, G.W. (2010). An overview of measurement in the social sciences. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Cartwright, N.L., and Bradburn, N.M. (2010). Measurement for science and policy. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Caspi, A., and Silva, P.A. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age 3 predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child Development, 66, 486-498.

Caspi, A., Gegg, D., Dickson, N., Harrington, H., Langley, J., Moffitt, T.E., and Silva, P.A. (1997). Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1052-1063.

Deaton, A., and Heston, A. (2010). Understanding PPPs and PPP-based national accounts. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(4), 1-35.

Diewert, W.E., Greenlees, J.S., and Hulten, C.R. (2009). Price index concepts and measurement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Duncan, O.D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A.J. Reiss, Jr. (Ed.), Occupations and Social Status (pp. 109-38). New York: Free Press.

Duncan, O.D. (1984). Notes on social measurement: Historical and critical. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Erikson, R., and Goldthorpe, J.H. (1992). The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press.

Fabricant, S. (1984). Toward a firmer basis of economic policy: The founding of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available: http://www.nber.org/nberhistory/sfabricantrev.pdf [accessed July 2, 2010].

Fryback, D.G. (2010). Measuring health-related quality of life. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×

Fryback, D.G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., and Kim, J.S. (2010). Comparison of 5 health-related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5-15.

Ganzeboom, H.B., De Graaf, P.M., and Treiman, D.J. (1992). A standard international socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1-56.

Grusky, D.B., and Cumberworth, E. (2010). A national protocol for measuring intergenerational mobility? Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. Stouffer et al. (Eds.), Measurement and prediction. The American Soldier Vol. IV. New York: Wiley.

Hauser, R.M. (2010). Comparable metrics: Some examples. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Hauser, R.M., Warren, J.R., Huang, M.-H., and Carter, W.Y. (2000). Occupational status, education, and social mobility in the meritocracy. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles, and S. Durlauf (Eds.), Meritocracy and economic inequality (pp. 179-229). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Heckman, J.J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900-1902.

Hollingshead, A.G. (1957). Two-factor index of social position. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hoyle, R.H., and Bradfield, E.K. (2010). Measurement and modeling of self-regulation: Is standardization a reasonable goal? Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

King, G., Murray, C.J.L., Salomon, J.A., and Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity of cross-cultural comparability of survey research. American Political Science Review, 98, 191-207.

Koopmans, T.C. (1947). Measurement without theory. Review of Economics and Statistics, 29(3), 161-172. Available at http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cp/p00a/p0025a.pdf [accessed July 2, 2010].

McHorney, C.A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309-335.

Michael, R.T. (2010). Measuring poverty: the question of standardization. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Miech, R.A., and Hauser, R.M. (2001). Socioeconomic status (SES) and health at midlife: A comparison of educational attainment with occupation-based indicators. Annals of Epidemiology, 11, 75-84.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., and Rodriguez, M.L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.

Molla, M., Wagener, D.K., and Madans, J.H. (2001). Summary measures of population health: Methods for calculating health expectancy. Healthy People Statistical Notes No. 21. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Mulgan, G. (2010). Advantages and disadvantages of the standardization of indicators used in policy. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

National Governors Association. (2008). Implementing graduation counts: State progress to date, 2008. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×

National Research Council. (1982). Behavioral and social science research: A national resource, Part 1. Committee on Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, R.M. Adams, N.J. Smelser, and D.J. Treiman, (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1995). Measuring poverty: A new approach. Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance: Concepts, Information Needs, and Measurement Methods, C.F. Citro and R.T. Michael (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1996). Spotlight on heterogeneity: The federal standards for racial and ethnic classification. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2005). Measuring literacy: Performance levels for adults. Committee on Performance Levels for Adult Literacy, R.M. Hauser, C.F. Edley, Jr., J.A. Koenig, and S.W. Elliott (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Patrick, D.L., and Erickson, P. (1993). Health status and health policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press.

Pollak, R.A. (2010). Standardized measurement. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Prewitt, K. (1987). Public statistics and democratic politics. In W. Alonso and P. Starr (Eds.), The politics of numbers (pp. 113-128). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Shinn Jr., M. (1969). An application of pyschophysical scaling techniques to the measurement of national power. Journal of Politics, 31, 932-951.

Snipp, C.M. (2010). Measuring race (and ethnicity). Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Treiman, D.J. (1976). A standard occupational prestige scale for use with historical data. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 7, 283-304.

Warren, R. (2010). High school completion rates. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Willis, R.J. (2010). Standardization of measurement: What can we learn from the economic sciences? Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Wright, E.O. 1993. Typologies, scales, and class analysis: A comment on Halaby and Weakliem. American Sociological Review, 58, 31-34.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×
Page77
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×
Page78
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×
Page79
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2011. The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13034.
×
Page80
Next: Appendix A: Workshop Agenda and Participants »
The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $36.00 Buy Ebook | $28.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In February 2010, the National Research Council convened a workshop to investigate the feasibility of developing well-grounded common metrics to advance behavioral and social science research, both in terms of advancing the development of theory and increasing the utility of research for policy and practice.

The Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics had three goals:

  • To examine the benefits and costs involved in moving from metric diversity to greater standardization, both in terms of advancing the development of theory and increasing the utility of research for policy and practice.
  • To consider whether a set of criteria can be developed for understanding when the measurement of a particular construct is ready to be standardized.
  • To explore how the research community can foster a move toward standardization when it appears warranted.

This book is a summary of the two days of presentations and discussions that took place during the workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!