Reliabilität von retrospektiven Berufsverlaufsdaten. Ein Vergleich zwischen dem öffentlichen Dienst und der Privatwirtschaft anhand von Panel-Daten

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Zuverlässigkeit retrospektiver Angaben der Befragten zu beruflichen Tätigkeiten in ihrem Berufsverlauf untersucht. Insbesondere ist ausgehend von einem Befund von De Graaf und Wegener (1989) zu klären, ob generell Beschäftigte des öffentlichen Dienstes ihren Berufsverlauf unzuverlässiger erinnern als Staatsbeschäftigte. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass gerade Beamte aufgrund der institutionellen Besonderheiten ihrer Beschäftigung größere Schwierigkeiten haben, ihren Berufsverlauf konsistent zu rekonstruieren als andere Befragte. Empirische Analysen von Panel-Daten erhärten diese Vermutung, was die Anzahl der beruflichen Tätigkeiten anbelangt. Jedoch machen Beamte zu anderen Attributen ihres Berufsverlaufs ebenso zuverlässige Angaben wie andere Befragte auch. Diese beamtenspezifischen Erinnerungsprobleme sind bei zukünftigen Erhebungen mittels ereignisorientierter Befragungsinstrumente zu berücksichtigen.

Critical incidence reporting systems - an option in equine anaesthesia? Results from a panel meeting.

OBJECTIVE To provide a brief introduction into Critical Incident Reporting Systems (CIRS) as used in human medicine, and to report the discussion from a recent panel meeting discussion with 23 equine anaesthetists in preparation for a new CEPEF-4 (Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Equine Fatalities) study. STUDY DESIGN Moderated group discussions, and review of literature. METHODS The first group discussion focused on the definition of 'preventable critical incidents' and/or 'near misses' in the context of equine anaesthesia. The second group discussion focused on categorizing critical incidents according to an established framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. RESULTS While critical incidents do occur in equine anaesthesia, no critical incident reporting system including systematic collection and analysis of critical incidents is in place. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Critical incident reporting systems could be used to improve safety in equine anaesthesia - in addition to other study types such as mortality studies.

Privacy Panel: Usable and Quantifiable Mobile Privacy

The ever increasing popularity of apps stems from their ability to provide highly customized services to the user. The flip side is that in order to provide such services, apps need access to very sensitive private information about the user. This leads to malicious apps that collect personal user information in the background and exploit it in various ways. Studies have shown that current app vetting processes which are mainly restricted to install time verification mechanisms are incapable of detecting and preventing such attacks. We argue that the missing fundamental aspect here is a comprehensive and usable mobile privacy solution, one that not only protects the user's location information, but also other equally sensitive user data such as the user's contacts and documents. A solution that is usable by the average user who does not understand or care about the low level technical details. To bridge this gap, we propose privacy metrics that quantify low-level app accesses in terms of privacy impact and transforms them to high-level user understandable ratings. We also provide the design and architecture of our Privacy Panel app that represents the computed ratings in a graphical user-friendly format and allows the user to define policies based on them. Finally, experimental results are given to validate the scalability of the proposed solution.

Antisemitismus heute. Zur Messung aktueller Erscheinungsformen von Judenfeindlichkeit mithilfe des faktoriellen Surveys

In der empirischen Antisemitismusforschung ist die standardisierte Befragung die populärste Methode der Datenerhebung. Ihre Verwendung kann jedoch weder die von Befragten wahrgenommene Normativität des Themas noch die situative Kontextabhängigkeit antisemitischer Kommunikation angemessen berücksichtigen. Die Methode des faktoriellen Surveys (auch „Vignettenexperiment“) bietet die Möglichkeit, solche situativen Merkmale systematisch zu variieren und so ihren Einfluss zu ermitteln. Damit wird eine bessere Operationalisierung von Kommunikationslatenz möglich, einem einflussreichen Konzept in der Antisemitismusforschung, dessen empirische Plausibilität unsere Studie zeigt. Sowohl Konsensgruppen- als auch Umwegkommunikation sind in der vorliegenden Stichprobe von Bedeutung: Stimmt die Mehrheit der Anwesenden antisemitischen Vorurteilen zu, steigt der Grad der Zustimmung zu antisemitischen Aussagen ebenso, wie wenn bei einer antisemitischen Aussage der Begriff „Juden“ durch den Begriff „Israelis“ ersetzt wird. Wird auf die deutsche Vergangenheit Bezug genommen, steigt die Zustimmung zu antisemitischen Aussagen ebenfalls (sekundärer Antisemitismus). Konsensgruppenkommunikation ist besonders bei eher links eingestellten Befragten, Umwegkommunikation besonders bei Personen mit niedrigem sozialen Status zu beobachten.

Advances in Teaching and Learning 2005 Webcast - Introductions and Expert Panel

Expert Panel: Documenting Teaching Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure Lemuel Moye, School of Public Health Miguel daCunha, School of Nursing William Tate, Dental School Katherine Loveland, Medical School

Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers―remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars’ job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the “optimal” number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.

PANEL DISCUSSION: "Medical Ethics, Eugenics, and the Holocaust"

A panel discussion moderated by Dr. Thomas R. Cole, McGovern Chair in Medical Humanities and Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. Panelists include: Rabbi Samuel E. Karff, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Beth Israel and Associate Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics and Visiting Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at the Texas Medical Center. Cardinal DiNardo, the second Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and the first cardinal archbishop from a diocese in the Southern United States. Dr. Sheldon Rubenfeld, Clinical Professor of Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and in Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, and is a Fellow in both the American College of Physicians and the American College of Endocrinology. Dr. Rubenfeld has taught "Healing by Killing: Medicine During the Third Reich" for three years and "Jewish Medical Ethics" for seven years at Baylor College of Medicine. He created a six-month program about Medicine and the Holocaust at Holocaust Museum Houston, including an exhibit entitled How Healing Becomes Killing: Eugenics, Euthanasia, Extermination and a series of lectures by distinguished speakers entitled "The Michael E. DeBakey Medical Ethics Lecture Series".

Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Comparison of the RRT and the Crosswise Model

Self-administered online surveys provide a higher level of privacy protection to respondents than surveys administered by an interviewer. Yet, studies show that asking sensitive questions is problematic also in self-administered mode. Because respondents might not be willing to reveal the truth and provide answers that are subject to social desirability bias, the validity of prevalence estimates of sensitive behaviors gained via online surveys can be challenged. A wellknown method to combat these problems is the Randomized Response Technique (RRT). However, convincing evidence that the RRT provides more valid estimates than direct questioning in online mode is still lacking. Moreover, an alternative approach called the Crosswise Model (CM) has recently been suggested to overcome some of the deficiencies of the RRT. We therefore conducted an experimental study in which different implementations of the RRT and the CM have been tested and compared to direct questioning. Our study is a large-scale online survey on sensitive behaviors by students such as cheating in exams and paper plagiarism. The results of the study reveal poor per-formance of the RRT, while the CM yielded significantly higher estimates of sensitive behaviors than direct questioning. We conclude that the CM is a promising approach for asking sensitive questions in self-administered surveys.

Asking Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Comparison of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model

Self-administered online surveys provide a higher level of privacy protection to respondents than surveys administered by an interviewer. Yet, studies show that asking sensitive questions is problematic also in self-administered mode. Because respondents might not be willing to reveal the truth and provide answers that are subject to social desirability bias, the validity of prevalence estimates of sensitive behaviors gained via online surveys can be challenged. A well-known method to combat these problems is the Randomized Response Technique (RRT). However, convincing evidence that the RRT provides more valid estimates than direct questioning in online mode is still lacking. Moreover, an alternative approach called the Crosswise Model (CM) has recently been suggested to overcome some of the deficiencies of the RRT. In the context of an online survey on plagiarism and cheating on exams among students of two Swiss universities (N = 6,494), we tested different implementations of the RRT and the CM and compared them to direct questioning using a randomized experimental design. Results reveal a poor performance of the RRT, which failed to elicit higher prevalence estimates than direct questioning. Using the CM however, significantly higher prevalence estimates were obtained making it a promising new alternative to the conventional RRT.