Brochures/Reviews/Reports

Journal of Social and Economic Measurement

The American National Science Foundation convened a conference in June 2014 to discuss whether or not the US needs a new national household panel survey. Papers were commissioned covering several different aspects of the considerations. The papers have now appeared as a special issue of the Journal of Social and Economic Measurement: http://content.iospress.com/journals/journal-of-economic-and-social-measurement/40/1-4. They include the following, several of which also figure in the “Articles” section in this issue of the BMS:

“Assessing the Need for a New Nationally Representative Household Panel Survey in the United States”, by Robert Moffitt, Robert F. Schoeni, Charles Brown, P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Mick P. Couper, Ana V. Diez-Roux, Erik Hurst and Judith A. Seltzer who introduce the special issue on the critical matter of whether or not the existing household panel surveys in the US are adequate to address the important emerging social science and policy questions of the next few decades.

“Income, Program Participation, Poverty, and Financial Vulnerability - Research and Data Needs”, by James P. Ziliak, who assesses the data infrastructure needed for future research and policy evaluation on income, program participation, poverty, and financial vulnerability in the United States.

“Human Capital, Education, Achievement and Learning”, by Chris Robinson, who reviews the most important scientific and policy research in the area of human capital, education achievement and learning and discusses the need for a new nationally representative household panel for the United States.

“Empirical Evidence in the Study of Labor Markets - Opportunities and Challenges for a New Household Survey”, by Dan A. Black, Lowell J. Taylor and Melanie Zaber, who show that many of the key issues confronting modern societies are closely tied to labor market outcomes.

“Household Consumption - Research Questions, Measurement Issues, and Data Collection Strategies”, by Luigi Pistaferri, who summarizes the most important academic and policy issues related to the study of consumption behavior in the US.

“Wealth, Pensions, Debt, and Savings - Considerations for a Panel Survey”, by Brian Bucks and Karen Pence, who show that although several US panel surveys measure household wealth, the understanding of many important aspects of household wealth accumulation remains incomplete.

“Measuring Time Use in Household Surveys”, by Erik Hurst, who considers whether or not the US needs a new national survey to measure time use.

“Family Formation Processes - Assessing the Need for a New Nationally Representative Household Panel Survey in the United States”, by Wendy D. Manning, looks at whether or not there is a need for a new household panel study that addresses family formation.

“Advancing the Science of Child and Adolescent Development - Do We Need a New Household Panel Survey?”, by Terri J. Sabol, P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, who examine the extent to which a new nationally representative household panel survey could bring children and adolescents to the forefront of its design.

“Intergenerational Family Support Processes from Young Adulthood through Later Life - Do We Need a New National Survey?”, by Judith A. Seltzer, who argues that the United States needs new survey data on intergenerational relationships in light of the dramatic demographic changes in parent-child and couple relationships that were not anticipated when many major family datasets were designed.

“Social Networks and Social Capital - New Directions for a Household Panel Survey”, by Laura Tach and Benjamin Cornwell, who highlight the importance of the social networks perspective in social science research and describes the main approaches to measuring social networks and closely related phenomena in existing household panel surveys.

“Housing and Neighborhoods and a New National Household Panel”, by Lincoln Quillian and Jens Ludwig, who consider the potential value of a new household panel to help understand issues related to housing and neighborhood conditions in the United States.

“Assessing the Need for a New Household Panel Study - Health Insurance and Health Care”, by Helen Levy, who considers the availability of data for addressing questions related to health insurance and health care and the potential contribution of a new household panel study.

“Physical Health and Health Behavior”, by Nancy Adler, Christine Bachrach and Aric A. Prather, who examine the potential contributions of a new longitudinal household survey that assesses physical health and the social and behavioral factors that impinge on it.

“Genotyping a New, National Household Panel Study - White Paper Prepared for NSF-sponsored Conference, May 2014”, by Dalton Conley, who demonstrates that existing social surveys that include genotypic markers are all limited on at least one dimension.

“Measuring Disability, Physical Functions and Cognitive Abilities of Adults - Survey Enhancements and Options for a New Panel Study”, by Carlos F. Mendes de Leon and Vicki A. Freedman, who consider whether or not a new household panel survey is needed to answer scientific and policy questions related to disability.

“Methodological Considerations for a New Household Panel Survey”, by Kristen Olson, and J. Michael Brick, who identify new opportunities for innovation and expansion on current survey practice in the design of a new household panel survey.

“Toward a New Nationally Representative Household Panel Survey (NRHPS)”, by James S. House, who explains that such a panel would represent a natural extension into the mid-21st century of the development of repeated cross-sectional and then longitudinal/panel household surveys.

“The Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Renew or Replace?”, by Shelly Lundberg, who didn’t provide an abstract.

“The Need for Nationally Representative Longitudinal Data for Addressing Key Questions about Family Change”, by R. Kelly Raley, who considers key questions about families in the United States and whether or not a new nationally representative panel study is necessary to answer these questions.

Maurice Blanc et Olivier Chadoin ont coordonné un dossier sur « Espaces et comparaisons internationales » dans le n. 163 (4/2015) de la revue Espaces et Sociétés', qui comprend un questionnement méthodologique important. La comparaison internationale est une méthode de recherche rarement pratiquée avec rigueur. Espaces et Sociétés la réinterroge dans le champ spatial. Quel est l’usage, dans le temps et dans l’espace, des concepts de ségrégation, ghetto, gentrification, ville durable ? Ce dossier ouvre la « boîte noire » de la recherche comparative et dévoile les enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Le dossier comprend : Maurice Blanc et Olivier Chadoin, « Éditorial » ; Clément Barbier, « Des études urbaines comparatistes à une sociologie croisée des politiques urbaines » ; Arnaud Trenta, « Les pratiques associatives dans les banlieues de Paris et Buenos Aires - La comparaison de cas contrastés » ; Antonin Margier, « Les apports de la comparaison internationale à la démarche de recherche en études urbaines », Angéline Escafré-Dublet, « Immigration et intégration à l’épreuve de la comparaison - Retour sur trois projets européens de recherche » ; et Coline Perrin, « Pour une comparaison internationale constructiviste - Une recherche sur l’agriculture urbaine en Méditerranée ».

The open access journal Frontiers recently published a special issue on measurement invariance. You can download the whole special issue (as an e-book or a pdf) at http://journal.frontiersin.org/researchtopic/1695/measurement-invariance or directly at http://www.frontiersin.org/books/Measurement_Invariance/694. The issue includes the following articles: “Editorial - Measurement Invariance”, by Rens Van De Schoot, Peter Schmidt, Alain De Beuckelaer, Kimberley Lek and Marielle Zondervan-Zwijnenburg; “The comparability of the universalism value over time and across countries in the European Social Survey - Exact vs. approximate measurement invariance”, by Florian Zercher, Peter Schmidt, Jan Cieciuch and Eldad Davidov; “A new visualization and conceptualization of categorical longitudinal development - Measurement invariance and change”, by Jan Boom; “Measurement equivalence in mixed mode surveys”, by Joop J. Hox, Edith D. De Leeuw and Eva A. O. Zijlmans; “Assessing factorial invariance of two-way rating designs using three-way methods”, by Pieter M. Kroonenberg; “Approximate measurement invariance in cross-classified rater-mediated assessments”, by Ben Kelcey, Dan McGinn and Heather Hill; “The experience of traumatic events disrupts the measurement invariance of a posttraumatic stress scale”, by Miriam J. J. Lommen, Rens van de Schoot and Iris M. Engelhard; “Testing for measurement invariance and latent mean differences across methods - Interesting incremental information from multitrait-multimethod studies”, by Christian Geiser, G. Leonard Burns and Mateu Servera; “Measurement bias detection through Bayesian factor analysis”, by M. T. Barendse, C. J. Albers, F. J. Oort and M. E. Timmerman; “Measurement bias detection with Kronecker product restricted models for multivariate longitudinal data - An illustration with health-related quality of life data from thirteen measurement occasions”, by Mathilde G. E. Verdam and Frans J. Oort; “Measurement invariance within and between individuals - A distinct problem in testing the equivalence of intra- and inter-individual model structures”, by Janne Adolf, Noémi K. Schuurman, Peter Borkenau, Denny Borsboom and Conor V. Dolan; “An approximate measurement invariance approach to within-couple relationship quality”, by Carlo Chiorri, Thomas Day and Lars-Erik Malmberg; “The consequences of ignoring measurement invariance for path coefficients in structural equation models”, by Nigel Guenole and Anna Brown; “IRT studies of many groups - The alignment method”, by Bengt Muthén and Tihomir Asparouhov; “Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities - Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling”, by Aleksandra Bujacz, Joar Vittersø, Veronika Huta and Lukasz D. Kaczmarek; “Comparing results of an exact vs. an approximate (Bayesian) measurement invariance test - A cross-country illustration with a scale to measure 19 human values”, by Jan Cieciuch, Eldad Davidov, Peter Schmidt, René Algesheimer and Shalom H. Schwartz; “Testing strong factorial invariance using three-level structural equation modeling”, by Suzanne Jak; “What’s hampering measurement invariance - Detecting non-invariant items using clusterwise simultaneous component analysis”, by Kim De Roover, Marieke E. Timmerman, Jozefien De Leersnyder, Batja Mesquita and Eva Ceulemans; “Score-based tests of measurement invariance - Use in practice”, by Ting Wang, Edgar C. Merkle and Achim Zeileis; and “Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis - A comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance”, by Rens Van De Schoot, Anouck Kluytmans, Lars Tummers, Peter Lugtig, Joop Hox and Bengt Muthen.

Le volume 3, numéro 2 de Statistique et société (vol. 3, n. 2, 2015) est un numéro thématique intitulé « Archives de la statistique » et comprend les articles suivants : « Éditorial » par Emmanuel Didier ; « Archives de la statistique - Introduction », par Béatrice Touchelay ; « Les archives de la statistique des ministères économiques et financiers », par Agnès d’Angio-Barros ; « La bibliothèque et les archives de l’Insee », par Stéphanie Groudiev et Michel de Saboulin ; « Les statistiques dans les fonds d’entreprises conservés aux Archives nationales du monde du travail à Roubaix », par Gersende Piernas ; « L’Académie des sciences et la statistique - Quelles archives ? », par Christiane Demeulenaère-Douyère ; « Les archives d’Alain Desrosières, entre écrits et discussions », par Geneviève Profit ; « Mémoire statistique », par René Padieu ; « Méthodes statistiques de l’économétrie - L’apport d’Edmond Malinvaud », par Pascal Mazodier ; « Quelles méthodes pour l’évaluation standardisée des compétences des élèves ? », par Thierry Rocher.