Page 90 - The Importance of Common Metrics for Advacing Social Science Theory and Research

The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13034.html

78 THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMON METRICS

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 Deci-
sion Making, 30(1), 5-15.
Ganzeboom, H.B., De Graaf, P.M., and Treiman, D.J. (1992). A standard international socio-
economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1-56.
Grusky, D.B., and Cumberworth, E. (2010). A national protocol for measuring intergenera-
tional 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 chil-
dren. 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, Wash-
ington, 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. Sci-
ence, 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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.