summer internship program annual symposium 2012. agenda welcome background overall purpose of...
TRANSCRIPT
Summer Internship ProgramSummer Internship ProgramAnnual Symposium 2012Annual Symposium 2012
Agenda
• Welcome
• Background
• Overall Purpose of Symposium
• Symposium Format
• Closing Remarks
• Meet and Greet the Interns
• UM Football Stadium Tour
2
Acknowledgements Sponsors:
Health and Retirement Study Life Course Development Program (2) Survey Methodology Program Social Environment and Health Program (2)
Partners: Senior Staff Advisory Committee SRC Administrators & SRC Diversity Committee Summer Institute in Survey Research Techniques Survey Research Operations Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
Research ISR and SRC Human Resources SRC Computing ISR and SRC Director’s Offices ISR Director’s Diversity Advisory Committee
3
The Effects of Incarceration and Probation on Reoffending and EmploymentNicole YadonSocial Environment & HealthSponsor: Dr. Jeffrey Morenoff
4
5
6
Issues in Studying the Effects of Mass Incarceration
• Framing the research question and identifying comparison groups▫ Some studies use survey samples to compare people who have vs. have not
been to prison▫ We frame the question as being about alternative ways of sanctioning
convicted felons Our comparison groups are restricted to the population of people convicted of
felonies We compare people who were sentenced to prison, jail, probation, etc.
• Obtaining appropriate data▫ Survey samples usually don’t include institutionalized populations
• Establishing causality ▫ True experiments are not possible – judges will not randomly allocate sentences▫ Problem of unobserved confounders
Judges may base their decisions on factors that are not observed by researchers (e.g., temperament)
These same factors may predict future outcomes (e.g., recidivism, employment)
7
Our Study
•Question: What is the effect of being sentenced to prison vs. probation on future criminal offending and employment?
•Data and sample: Administrative records on all felony convictions in Michigan from 2003-06▫Records from courts, department of corrections, police,
unemployment insurance agency
•Method: Quasi-experimental designs▫Using random assignment of judges to cases as
“instrumental variable”▫Exploiting “discontinuities” in sentencing guidelines
Guidelines restrict judges’ sentencing options based on (a) offense severity and (b) prior criminal record
8
My Role: Circuit Court Demographic Information
•Background research on operation of Michigan Circuit Court system▫Reading court documents▫Talking to judges and court officials
•Collecting data on judges (part of new project sentencing disparities)▫Collecting data on judges from circuit court websites and
“Judgepedia”▫Obtaining records from Michigan Supreme Court
Administrative Office Biographical data on judges Circuit-level data on court processing
9
10
•From 2003-2009 there were 289 judges in office▫60% (n=173) were elected▫40% (n=116) were appointed
11
12
13
14
Acknowledgements
• Jeffrey Morenoff, Ph.D.•David Harding, Ph.D.•MDOC & SCAO•SRC Summer Internship Program
15
Urban Social and Built Environment and the Trajectories of Social Isolation:
Findings from Detroit MI CHOICE Population
Min Hee Kim ([email protected])
Social Environment and Health ProgramSponsor: Philippa Clarke, Ph.D.
Internship Goals
Analytic skills for multi-level data structureExplore the mechanisms through which
neighborhood affects older adults’ healthEngage in social environment and health
scholarships Work and family balance
17
Background
Why is social isolation important at later life?
Staying at home, instead of admission to nursing home, has benefits at both individual and societal level
Understanding social and built environment factors that affect social isolation is critical
18
19
Detroit older adults experienced rapid socioeconomic and structural decline in last decades
Research Question & the Focus
How do neighborhood social and built environments explain the trajectories of social isolation, adjusting for socio-demographic and health factors?
Focus on those who have unmet needs (i.e., Medicaid Waiver Program Recipients) in Central Detroit
20
Conceptual Model
Individual Factors
Socio-demographics & Health•Baseline age, race, gender, education, housing type, marital status, being alone•ADL and IADL limitation
21
Social IsolationInitial Status
Social & Built Environment
• Street Conditions (% of Poor Streets in block)
• Social Disorder Index• Residential Security Sign
(% of Security Sign in block)
Social IsolationOvertime
Methodology
Analytic MethodsGeneralized Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)
Data 1) Michigan Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Home Care (2000-2008) followed every 90 days2) Neighborhood Data using Systemic Social
Observation (SSO) methods
22
SSO Data •Neighborhood audit of all 4 streets in each client’s residential block •Using Google Street View (2007-2009) •Indicators of built physical and social environment can be reliably assessed with a virtual audit instrument (Clarke, et al. (2010) Health and Place)
Social Isolation
Social Isolation was measured as a dichotomous variable indicating whether client’s level of participation in social, religious, occupational or other preferred activities declined
As compared to the previous 180 days, as assessed by the case manager
24
Constructed Variables Difficulties with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) • 7 items: Transfer, Walking, Dressing, Eating, Toilet, Grooming Bathing • Individual item measured : 0 (independent) ~ 5 (activity did not occur)
Difficulties with Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) • 7 items: Meal, Housework, Money, Medications, Phone, Shop, Travel) • Individual item measured: 0 (no difficulty) ~ 2 (great difficulties)
Social Disorder Index (9 items)1) Graffiti painted over; 2) Garbage, litter or broken glass; 3) Cigarette or cigar
butts; 4) Empty beer or liquor bottles in streets, 5) Gang graffiti; 6) Other graffiti on buildings; 7) Abandoned car; 8) Condoms; 9) Drug related paraphernalia on the side walk
25
Individual Characteristics at Baseline (2000-2008) (N=1,009) (weighted)
26
Proportion or Mean (s.d.)
Age 55 to 64 10.56 % Age 65 to 74 22.18 % Age 75 to 84 37.42 % Age 85+ 29.84 % Female 73.89 % African American 94.31 % <HS Education 49.90 % HS Education 44.39 % College and above 5.72 %House 57.00%Apartment 38.56 %Other Residential Type 4.44 % Married 20.77 % Not Staying Alone 55.40 % ADL Limitations 1.92 (1.21) IADL Limitations 1.55 (0.43
Neighborhood Characteristics at Baseline (2000-2008) (N=1,009) (weighted)
Average % of poor street on the block 0.23 (s.d. 0.27) Average social disorder index 1.44 (s.d. 1.25 ) Average % of residential security sign in the block 0.02
(s.d. 0.78)
27
Proportion of Residential Security Sign
Freq. Percent
0 927 91.89% 0.1~0.25 73 7.23% 0.5 9 0.89%
Total 1,006 100%
Longitudinal Characteristics (2000-2008) (N=4,875)
Average number of observation per person= 5.1 Weight generated based on the probability of
retention Individual data was truncated at 3 years Average observations per neighborhood cluster 2.1
28
29
Table. Multilevel Logistic Regression Coefficients for Trajectories of Social Isolation: Detroit Minimum Data Set 2000-2008), Age 55+ (Obs=4,875)
Uncond' Growth Model Growth Model+ Socio-demographic
Controls+ Social and Built
Environment Coef. (OR) Coef. (OR) Coef. (OR) Coef. (OR)
Individual Fixed EffectsIntercept 0.61 1.84*** 0.34(1.40) † -1.04(0.35) * -1.147 (0.32) *Age 65 to 74a 0.38(1.47) 0.27(1.30) 0.2518 (1.29)Age 75 to 84 a 0.40(1.49) † 0.18(1.19) 0.1458 (1.16)Age 85+ a 0.11(1.11) -0.15(0.86) -0.176 (0.84)Not Staying Alone -0.33(0.72) † -0.323 (0.72) †ADL Limitations 0.07(1.07) 0.0655 (1.07)IADL Limitations 0.65(1.91) ** 0.6767 (1.98) **
Neighborhood Fixed Effects
Average Street Condition -0.058 (0.94)Social Disorder 0.0161 (1.02) % Security Sign 3.1416 (23.14) **
TIME (Months) -0.02 0.98 *** -0.02 0.98 *** 0.01 1.01 0.02 1.02
Variance Components 6.69087 6.80317 7.50638 7.53534***P<.001; **P<.01, *P<.05, †p<.10
§Note 1) We fixed the effects of time (i.e., constraining the random variance in time to zero), because there was no variability to be explained between persons. Still, we tested whether the trajectory slopes vary between persons by baseline characteristics. 2) Results are controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, housing type, and marital status
31
Discussions
Practical implications Generalization to urban older adults population in
povertySome limitations to be further examinedMethodological Implications Policy Implications
32
Thank you
Special thanks to.. Philippa Clarke Ph.D., George Myers Ph.D., and
2012 Summer SRC Interns
*Funding for the geocoding/SSO part of this project was provided through Grant number K01EH000286-01 (Clarke) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
33
Disclosure and Quality of Answers in Text and Voice Interviews on iPhones
Monique KellySurvey Methodology ProgramSponsor: Fred Conrad, Ph.D.
Parent Study
•Examined▫Data quality (satisficing, disclosure, straightlining)▫Completion rates▫Respondent satisfaction
•Four existing or plausible survey modes that work through native apps on the iPhone
35
Experiment: 4 modes on iPhone
Medium
Voice SMS Text
Interviewing Agent
Human Human voice (R speaks with I)
Human text(R texts with I)
Automated Speech IVR (R speaks with system)
Automated Text(R texts with system)
36
Items
• First, safe-to-talk question
• 32 Qs taken from major US social surveys and methodological studies▫ E.g ., Pew Internet & American Life Project
• Types of QS▫ Yes/No▫ Numerical▫ Categorical▫ Battery Items (series of Qs with same response options)
37
Respondents
•n = 642 iPhone users (age > 21)•158 to 165 randomly assigned to each mode•Recruited from:▫Craigslist ▫Facebook ▫Google Ads ▫Amazon Mechanical Turk
• Incentive▫$20 iTunes gift code
38
Summary
•Voice vs. Text▫Text produced higher data quality
Greater disclosure, less satisficing, high satisfaction
•Human vs. Automated▫Automated interviews on a smartphone (in these modes)
can lead to data at least as high in quality as data from human interviews in same modes No more satisficing than with human interviewers! More disclosure
39
Internship Project
40
Goals of Project
• To see how the interaction between R and the I agent differ across modes.
• How this explain differences in answers to same questions across modes.
• To understand interaction around disclosure of personal/sensitive information.
41
Example Research Questions
•Does more departure from the script reduce disclosure? ▫automated interviewers never depart from script
•Do respondents exhibit less human-like communication (e.g. disfluencies) when interacting with automated speech system?
42
Rendering
43
Opened in Camtasia
Then converted into an avi filePAMSS interface
Transcribing
44
Coding
45
Coding was done in a tool called Sequence Viewer.
Coding (continued)•Respondent Codes▫Examples
Answer question Partial answer
• Interviewer Codes▫Examples
Ask question exactly as worded Ask question with wording change
•Questions Raised•Possible Additions?
46
•Relationship between sciptedness and disclosure.▫Whether I asks the question exactly as worded or not
•Comparison of R’s speech when I is human or automated.
47
Future Analyses
Conclusion
•Aim▫Interviewing agent effect on respondent’s answers.
•Project in early phases▫Three other modes to be transcribed, coded, and
analyzed.
•Stay tuned for more!
48
Acknowledgements•George Myers, Ph.D.•Fred Conrad, Ph.D.•Michael Schober•Andrew Hupp•Lloyd Hemingway•Chan Zhang•Mingnan Liu•Chris Antoun•The staff of Survey Methodology Program•CMT
49
Understanding the Achievement Gap: Do Parent Expectations and School Climate Matter?
50
Adrian Gale, MSWUniversity of MichiganJoint Program in Social Work and Developmental Psychology
Sponsor: Toni Antonucci Ph.D.Life Course Development
Background
• The achievement gap. (Ferguson, 2003; Mandara et al., 2009; Woolley & Bowen, 2004)
• The reality of differential academic performance has implications for life outcomes. (Grogan-Kaylor and Woolley, 2010)
• Physical and Mental Health
• Marital and Parental Status
• Occupation and Income
51
Theoretical Framework: Bioecological Theory of Human Development
52
(Bronfenbrenner, 2004)
Macro (e.g. national education policies)
Exo (e.g. neighborhood, schools)
Micro (e.g. parents, siblings)
Parent Expectations…
• Realistic beliefs about youth future achievement.
• Linked to child outcomes such as grades. (Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010)
• Differ by gender. (Wood et al. 2007; Wood et al, 2010)
• Found to be related to academic stereotypes and previous academic outcomes. (Ferguson, 2003)
53
School Climate…
54
• Norms and expectations defined and perceived by individuals within the school.
• Related to children’s academic achievement. (Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes, 2010)
• Multidimensional construct, typically studied from youth’s perspective. (Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes, 2010)
• Parents’ perception of school climate shown to be related their parent aspirations for their children. (Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2009)
Research Questions•RQ1: What is the impact of parent expectations
and school climate on academic achievement?
•RQ2: Do parent perceptions of school climate moderate the effect of parent expectations on academic achievement?
•RQ3: What is the impact of student gender on parent expectations and school climate?
55
Data
56
PI Jacque Eccles
Description of Sample
•Wave 1 collected during 7th grade (1991)
•N=1328
•51% Male; 49% Female
•66% Black; 34% White
57
Measures•Parent Expectations
▫ Single item▫ “How far do you think (CHILD) will actually go in school?”▫ 9-point scale (1=8th grade or less; 9=MD, JD or PhD)
•Parent perceptions of school climate▫ 4-item scale (alpha = 0.84)▫ Ex. Children generally feel that they belong▫ 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
•Academic Achievement▫ 7th grade GPA▫ 5-point scale
58
Means (SD) of Variables
Mean (SD) Range
Parent Expectations 6.8 (1.7) 2-9
School Climate 3.5 (0.6) 1-5
Academic Achievement 3.6 (0.9) 1-5
59
RQ1: Impact on Academic Achievement
Beta b (SE) Sig. Level
Parent Expectations .335 .175 (.013) ***
School Climate .093 .131 (.035) ***
N 1224
R2 .274***
60
* p-value <.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
• Models control for: race and gender.
RQ2: Interaction of Parent Expectations and School Climate
Beta b (SE) Sig. Level
Parent Expectations .335 .175 (.013) ***
School Climate .093 .131 (.035) ***
Parent Expectations XSchool Climate
.234 .026 (.019) .172
N 1224
Adjusted R-Square Main Effects Model
.273***
Change in Adjusted R-Square Interaction Model
.001
61
* p-value <.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001• Models control for: race and gender.
RQ3: Impact of Gender on Parent Expectations and School Climate
Parent Expectations
Beta b (SE) Sig. Level
Gender (0=male:1=female)
.091 .319 (.096) ***
N 1321
R2 .01*
School Climate
Gender (0=male:1=female)
.014 .017 (.036) .625
N 1303
R2 .000
62
* p-value <.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001• Models control for: race.
Summary of Findings•RQ1: Parent expectations and school climate
were significant predictors of academic achievement.
•RQ2: No interaction of parent expectations and school climate on academic achievement.
•RQ3: Gender, significant predictor of parent expectations, but not related to school climate.
63
Discussion•Parents role great.▫Expectations > Perceptions of School Climate
•Parent perception of school climate may not be as accurate because their interactions with school do not occur during class time.
•Parents expectations high for boys and girls.
64
Future Directions•Examine relationships longitudinally to see their
affect across time.
•Examine the three way interaction between school climate, parent expectations and gender on academic achievement.
•Examine the main and interactive effects of SES/race with gender, parent expectations, and school climate.
65
Acknowledgements
Noah Webster, Ph.D.
Toni Antonucci, Ph.D.
Oksana Malachuk, Ph.D.
Jacque Eccles, Ph.D.
Stephanie Rowley, Ph.D.
George Myers, Ph.D.
66
Income Inequality as a Predictor of Self-Rated Health
Beth SimmertPh.D. Student
Department of SociologyWayne State University
Sponsors: Jessica Faul, Ph.D.
Amanda Sonnega, Ph.D.Health and Retirement Study
SES/Health Gradient
SES
Rate of Chronic Diseases
High
High
Low
Low
Background
SES/Health Gradient•Individual level mechanisms▫Increased access to health care▫Afford healthier foods▫Exercise ▫Risky health behaviors
•Society level mechanisms
Background
Theory of fundamental cause•Persists across▫Time▫Age groups▫Racial groups▫Gender groups
Source: Link and Phelan. 1995. “Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35(Extra Issue):80–94.
Research Question
•Does income/wealth inequality explain differences in the SES/Health Gradient that are not accounted for by individual level measures of behavior and access to care for older Americans?
Gini Coefficient
Independent Variables
•Gini•Gender•Education•Age•Wealth• Income•Median County Income•Race•Urbanicity
•Health and Retirement Study (HRS)▫2006 Health and Demographic data
•American Community Survey (ACS)▫2005-2010 5-year estimates for Gini and county
median income data
Data
2006 HRS DataN=16,290 Proportion
Sex59% Female41% Male
Race84% Non-Hispanic White16% Non-Hispanic Black
Above/Below Median Income60% Above40% Below
Location76% Metro24% Non-Metro
Education
19% No degree55% GED or High School degree 5% Some College 13% Bachelor Degree 9% Master or Professional Degree
2006 HRS Data
N=16,290 Mean Median
Age Group 68.3 68
Wealth $562,633 $205,750
Income $66,000 $39,200
2006 ACS Data
Mean Median Range
Gini Coefficient 0.447 0.450 0.332—0.601
Median County Income
$51,254 $47,500 $20,081—$115,574
“Would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?”
1,844=Excellent4,915=Very Good5,030=Good3,133=Fair1,368=Poor
Dichotomized into:Excellent, Very Good, Good=0Fair, Poor=1
11,789=Excellent, Very Good, Good 4,501=Fair, Poor
Dependent Variables—Self rated Health
Method—Logistic Regression
•Model 1▫Gini, sex, education, age
•Model 2▫Wealth, income, county median income
•Model 3▫Race
•Model 4▫Level of urbanicity
Logistic regression for Self-Rated Health
Model 1OR 95%CI
Model 2OR 95%CI
Model 3OR 95%CI
Model 4OR 95%CI
Gini coefficient
71.5*** (25.5-200.6) 8.19*** (2.72-24.63) 5.12** (1.63-16.07) 6.17** (1.85-20.62)
Gender ns *** *** ***
Education 0.63*** (0.61-0.65) *** *** ***
Age Group
1.13*** (1.11-1.15) *** *** ***
Wealth 0.90*** (0.89-0.92) *** ***
Income 0.75*** (0.72-0.78) *** ***
Median Income
0.72*** (0.62-0.85) *** **
Race 1.173** (1.06-1.30) **
Urbanicity ns
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Logistic regression for Self-Rated Health: by Race
Non-Hispanic WhiteN=13,718
Model 3OR 95%CI
Gini coefficient 25.61*** (6.56-.99.99)
Gender 0.81*** (0.74-0.88)
Education 0.75*** (0.72-0.78)
Age Group 1.12*** (1.10-1.14)
Wealth 0.888*** (0.87-0.91)
Income 0.771*** (0.74-0.81)
Median Income 0.788* (0.64-0.98)
Urbanicity ns
Non-Hispanic BlackN=2,572
Model 3OR 95%CI
Gini coefficient 0.039* (0.003-0.516)
Gender ns
Education 0.80*** (0.73-0.88)
Age Group 1.11*** (1.06-1.16)
Wealth 0.94*** (0.91-0.96)
Income 0.71*** (0.65-0.78)
Median Income ns
Urbanicity ns
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Logistic regression for Self-Rated Health: by Gender
MalesN=6,721
Model 4OR 95%CI
Gini coefficient 14.47* (2.22-94.35)
Education 0.74*** (0.70-0.78)
Age Group 1.13*** (1.10-1.17)
Wealth 0.92*** (0.90-0.95)
Income 0.75*** (0.70-0.80)
Median Income ns
Race ns
Urbanicity ns
FemalesN=9,569
Model 4OR 95%CI
Gini coefficient ns
Education 0.78*** (0.82-1.18)
Age Group 1.10*** (0.73-0.88)
Wealth 0.90*** (1.06-1.16)
Income 0.75*** (0.91-0.96)
Median Income 0.67** (0.65-0.78)
Race 1.23** (0.52-1.25)
Urbanicity ns
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
•A society level measurement can be predictive of individual level health.
•The Gini coefficient is predictive of self-rated health.▫Higher inequality = higher probability of having poor
self-rated health▫Gini coefficient remains significant after accounting for
individual-level measures▫Greater effect in whites than blacks▫Greater effect in males than females
Conclusions
•More sub-group analysis▫High inequality—High heterogeneity▫Low inequality—Low heterogeneity/high income▫Low inequality—Low heterogeneity/low income
•Relative influence of others on measures of self-rated health.
Implications for Future Research
•Amanda Sonnega• Jessica Faul•George Myers• ISR SAS Users Group•Nicole, Adrian, MinHee, Monique, and Mara• Janet Keller•Michigan Square HRS faculty and staff
Thank You!
86
87