The development of a public assistance recipient perception inventory (p.a.r.p.i.)

"FSS 73-12-1."

The impact of the WIN 2 program on welfare costs and recipient rates /

Bibliography: leaves 11-12.

Income security for persons with limited income : program summaries, recipient and expenditure data /

"77-152 ED. HV84A."

CEDIA (R) sirolimus assay compared with HPLC-MS/MS and HPLC-UV in transplant recipient specimens

The role of the therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory in support of immunosuppressant drug therapy is well established, and the introduction of sirolimus (SRL) is a new direction in this field. The lack of an immunoassay for several years has restricted the availability of SRL assay services. The recent availability of a CEDIA (R) SRL assay has the potential to improve this situation. The present communication has compared the CEDIA (R) SRL method with 2 established chromatographic methods, HPLC-UV and HPLC-MS/MS. The CEDIA (R) method, run on a Hitachi 917 analyzer, showed acceptable validation criteria with within-assay precision of 9.1% and 3.3%, and bias of 17.1% and 5.8%, at SRL concentrations of 5.0 mu g/L and 20 mu g/L, respectively. The corresponding between-run precision values were 11.5% and 3.3% and bias of 7.1% and 2.9% at 5.0 mu g/L and 20 mu g/L, respectively, The lower limit of quantification was found to be 3.0 mu g/L. A series of 96 EDTA whole-blood samples predominantly from renal transplant recipients were assayed by the 3 methods for comparison. It was found that the CEDIA (R) method showed a Deming regression line of CEDIA = 1.20 X HPLC-MS/MS - 0.07 (r = 0.934, SEE = 1.47), with a mean bias of 20.4%. Serial blood samples from 8 patients included in this evaluation showed that the CEDIA (R) method reflected the clinical fluctuations in the chromatographic methods, albeit with the variable bias noted. The CEDIA (R) method on the H917 analyzer is therefore a useful adjunct to SRL dosage individualization in renal transplant recipients.

Does human capital endowment of FDI recipient countries really matter? Evidence from cross-country firm level data

The stylized literature on foreign direct investment suggests that developing countries should invest in the human capital of their labour force in order to attract foreign direct investment. However, if educational quality in developing country is uncertain such that formal education is a noisy signal of human capital, it might be rational for multinational enterprises to focus more on job-specific training than on formal education of the labour force. Using cross-country data from the textiles and garments industry, we demonstrate that training indeed has greater impact on firm efficiency in developing countries than formal education of the work force.

Does human capital endowment of foreign direct investment recipient countries really matter? evidence from cross-country firm level data

The stylized literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) suggests that developing countries should invest in the human capital of their labor force in order to attract FDI. However, if educational quality in developing country is uncertain such that formal education is a noisy signal of human capital, it might be rational for multinational enterprises to focus more on job-specific training than on formal education of the labor force. Using cross-country data from the textiles and garments industry, we demonstrate that training indeed has a greater impact on firm efficiency in developing countries than formal education of the workforce. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.