Instrumental leadership: An extension of the Full-Range Leadership Theory

From a theoretical perspective, an extension to the Full Range leadership Theory (FRLT) seems needed. In this paper, we explain why instrumental leadership--a class of leadership includes leader behaviors focusing on task and strategic aspects that are neither values nor exchange oriented--can fulfill this extension. Instrument leadership is composed of four factors: environmental monitoring, strategy formulation and implementation, path-goal facilitation and outcome monitoring; these aspects of leadership are currently not included in any of the FRLT's nine leadership scales (as measured by the MLQ--Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire). We present results from two empirical studies using very large samples from a wide array of countries (N > 3,000) to examine the factorial, discriminant and criterion-related validity of the instrumental leadership scales. We find support for a four-factor instrumental leadership model, which explains incremental variance in leader outcomes in over and above transactional and transformational leadership.

P value and the theory of hypothesis testing: an explanation for new researchers.

In the 1920s, Ronald Fisher developed the theory behind the p value and Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson developed the theory of hypothesis testing. These distinct theories have provided researchers important quantitative tools to confirm or refute their hypotheses. The p value is the probability to obtain an effect equal to or more extreme than the one observed presuming the null hypothesis of no effect is true; it gives researchers a measure of the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis. As commonly used, investigators will select a threshold p value below which they will reject the null hypothesis. The theory of hypothesis testing allows researchers to reject a null hypothesis in favor of an alternative hypothesis of some effect. As commonly used, investigators choose Type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true) and Type II error (accepting the null hypothesis when it is false) levels and determine some critical region. If the test statistic falls into that critical region, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Despite similarities between the two, the p value and the theory of hypothesis testing are different theories that often are misunderstood and confused, leading researchers to improper conclusions. Perhaps the most common misconception is to consider the p value as the probability that the null hypothesis is true rather than the probability of obtaining the difference observed, or one that is more extreme, considering the null is true. Another concern is the risk that an important proportion of statistically significant results are falsely significant. Researchers should have a minimum understanding of these two theories so that they are better able to plan, conduct, interpret, and report scientific experiments.

Reception of Walras' theory of exchange and theory of production in Russia

This paper evaluates the reception of Léon Walras' ideas in Russia before 1920. Despite an unfavourable institutional context, Walras was read by Russian economists. On the one hand, Bortkiewicz and Winiarski, who lived outside Russia and had the opportunity to meet and correspond with Walras, were first class readers and very good ambassadors for Walras' ideas, while on the other, the economists living in Russia were more selective in their readings. They restricted themselves to Walras' Elements of Pure Economics, in particular, its theory of exchange, while ignoring its theory of production. We introduce a cultural argument to explain their selective reading. JEL classification numbers: B 13, B 19.

Jevons et Walras : entre philosophie morale et économie sociale, un jalon dans la compréhension de la décision publique

This PhD dissertation deals with the question of evaluating social welfare and public policy making through the works of William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) and Léon Walras (1834-1910), two economists who lived in the 19th century. These authors, well-known for their analyses on pure economics, were also deeply interested in the social problems of their time and proposed solutions to remedy them. In accordance with utilitarianism, Jevons was convinced that the reforms implemented by public authorities should improve social welfare (viewed as dependant on individual utilities). As for Walras, he defined a justice criterion based on a particular definition of natural law, and the reforms he proposed had the objective of restoring the rights following from this definition. We have drawn two principal conclusions from our work. First, the analyses of Jevons and Walras, who are often considered marginalise, are different not only in pure economics (as suggested by Jaffé in the seventies), but also from the point of view of welfare economics (defined as a science dealing with the evaluation of different social states). Secondly, these authors propose two different ways of justifying social reforms which have similarities with modern theory even though neither Jevons nor Walras are considered pioneers of welfare economics or public economics. Based on these two conclusions, we claim that studying these authors' theories might be of interest for the evaluation of public projects by the economists of today. Not only were their problems similar to ours, but also the original ideas present in their analyses may lead to the refinement of modern methods.Résumé en françaisCette these de doctorat porte sur les manières dont deux économistes du XIXe siècle, William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) et Léon Walras (1834-1910), abordent la question du bien- etre collectif et la prise de décision publique. Connus principalement pour leurs travaux en économie pure, ces auteurs s'intéressent également à la question sociale et proposent des solutions pour y remédier. Jevons, conformément à son adhésion à la tradition utilitariste, estime que les interventions des autorités publiques doivent avoir pour objectif l'amélioration du bien- être collectif. Quant à Walras, il adopte un critère de justice qui relève du « droit naturel » et les propositions sociales qu'il préconise sont justifiées sur la base de leur conformité avec ce dernier. A l'issue du travail effectué dans le cadre de cette thèse, nous avons abouti à deux résultats principaux : (1) Les analyses de Jevons et Walras, deux économistes qui sont souvent considérés comme des « marginalistes » diffèrent fondamentalement non seulement dans leur analyse de l'économie pure, comme Jaffé le soulignait (1976), mais également en termes d'économie du bien-être (comprise comme une science ayant pour objectif l'évaluation des différents états sociaux). (2) Il existe deux voies originales pour justifier les réformes sociales dans les oeuvres de Jevons et Walras qui partagent des similarités importantes avec les théories modernes bien que ces auteurs ne fassent pas partie des jalons généralement retenus de l'histoire de l'économie du bien-être et de l'économie publique. Ces deux résultats nous conduisent à avancer que l'étude des approches de Jevons et de Walras peut contribuer à la formulation de nouvelles solutions à des problèmes rencontrés dans l'évaluation des différentes politiques publiques, car non seulement les préoccupations de ces auteurs était similaires aux nôtres, mais vu les éléments originaux que leurs propositions comportent, elles peuvent permettre de nuancer certaines aspects des méthodes modernes.

Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, validity and reliability of a self-reported questionnaire - the DiPCare-Q

Background: General practitioners play a central role in taking deprivation into consideration when caring for patients in primary care. Validated questions to identify deprivation in primary-care practices are still lacking. For both clinical and research purposes, this study therefore aims to develop and validate a standardized instrument measuring both material and social deprivation at an individual level. Methods: The Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare-Q) was developed using qualitative and quantitative approaches between 2008 and 2011. A systematic review identified 199 questions related to deprivation. Using judgmental item quality, these were reduced to 38 questions. Two focus groups (primary-care physicians, and primary-care researchers), structured interviews (10 laymen), and think aloud interviews (eight cleaning staff) assured face validity. Item response theory analysis was then used to derive the DiPCare-Q index using data obtained from a random sample of 200 patients who were to complete the questionnaire a second time over the phone. For construct and criterion validity, the final 16 questions were administered to a random sample of 1,898 patients attending one of 47 different private primary-care practices in western Switzerland (validation set) along with questions on subjective social status (subjective SES ladder), education, source of income, welfare status, and subjective poverty. Results: Deprivation was defined in three distinct dimensions (table); material deprivation (eight items), social deprivation (five items) and health deprivation (three items). Item consistency was high in both the derivation (KR20 = 0.827) and the validation set (KR20 = 0.778). The DiPCare-Q index was reliable (ICC = 0.847). For construct validity, we showed the DiPCare-Q index to be correlated to patients' estimation of their position on the subjective SES ladder (rs = 0.539). This position was correlated to both material and social deprivation independently suggesting two separate mechanisms enhancing the feeling of deprivation. Conclusion: The DiPCare-Q is a rapid, reliable and validated instrument useful for measuring both material and social deprivation in primary care. Questions from the DiPCare-Q are easy to use when investigating patients' social history and could improve clinicians' ability to detect underlying social distress related to deprivation.

Properties of a risk measure derived from ruin theory

This paper studies a risk measure inherited from ruin theory and investigates some of its properties. Specifically, we consider a value-at-risk (VaR)-type risk measure defined as the smallest initial capital needed to ensure that the ultimate ruin probability is less than a given level. This VaR-type risk measure turns out to be equivalent to the VaR of the maximal deficit of the ruin process in infinite time. A related Tail-VaR-type risk measure is also discussed.