American Sociological Association

Search

Search

The search found 246 results in 0.03 seconds.

Search results

  1. The Spatial Proximity and Connectivity Method for Measuring and Analyzing Residential Segregation

    In recent years, there has been increasing attention focused on the spatial dimensions of residential segregation—from the spatial arrangement of segregated neighborhoods to the geographic scale or relative size of segregated areas. However, the methods used to measure segregation do not incorporate features of the built environment, such as the road connectivity between locations or the physical barriers that divide groups. This paper introduces the spatial proximity and connectivity (SPC) method for measuring and analyzing segregation.
  2. Estimating Income Statistics from Grouped Data: Mean-constrained Integration over Brackets

    Researchers studying income inequality, economic segregation, and other subjects must often rely on grouped data—that is, data in which thousands or millions of observations have been reduced to counts of units by specified income brackets.
  3. Deciding on the Starting Number of Classes of a Latent Class Tree

    In recent studies, latent class tree (LCT) modeling has been proposed as a convenient alternative to standard latent class (LC) analysis. Instead of using an estimation method in which all classes are formed simultaneously given the specified number of classes, in LCT analysis a hierarchical structure of mutually linked classes is obtained by sequentially splitting classes into two subclasses. The resulting tree structure gives a clear insight into how the classes are formed and how solutions with different numbers of classes are substantively linked to one another.
  4. Nonlinear Autoregressive Latent Trajectory Models

    Autoregressive latent trajectory (ALT) models combine features of latent growth curve models and autoregressive models into a single modeling framework. The development of ALT models has focused primarily on models with linear growth components, but some social processes follow nonlinear trajectories. Although it is straightforward to extend ALT models to allow for some forms of nonlinear trajectories, the identification status of such models, approaches to comparing them with alternative models, and the interpretation of parameters have not been systematically assessed.
  5. Causal Inference with Networked Treatment Diffusion

    Treatment interference (i.e., one unit’s potential outcomes depend on other units’ treatment) is prevalent in social settings. Ignoring treatment interference can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects and incorrect statistical inferences. Some recent studies have started to incorporate treatment interference into causal inference. But treatment interference is often assumed to follow a simple structure (e.g., treatment interference exists only within groups) or measured in a simplistic way (e.g., only based on the number of treated friends).
  6. Estimating the Relationship between Time-varying Covariates and Trajectories: The Sequence Analysis Multistate Model Procedure

    The relationship between processes and time-varying covariates is of central theoretical interest in addressing many social science research questions. On the one hand, event history analysis (EHA) has been the chosen method to study these kinds of relationships when the outcomes can be meaningfully specified as simple instantaneous events or transitions.
  7. Limitations of Design-based Causal Inference and A/B Testing under Arbitrary and Network Interference

    Randomized experiments on a network often involve interference between connected units, namely, a situation in which an individual’s treatment can affect the response of another individual. Current approaches to deal with interference, in theory and in practice, often make restrictive assumptions on its structure—for instance, assuming that interference is local—even when using otherwise nonparametric inference strategies.
  8. Rejoinder: On the Assumptions of Inferential Model Selection—A Response to Vassend and Weakliem

    I am grateful to Professors Vassend and Weakliem for their comments on my paper (this volume, pp. 52–87) and its admittedly unusual approach to model selection and to the Sociological Methodology editors for the opportunity to respond. My goal here is not to defend the inferential information criterion (IIC) against all the points brought out by Vassend (this volume, pp. 91–97) and Weakliem (this volume, pp. 88–91). My paper aimed to (1) show how methodological assumptions interfere with inferences about theory and (2) develop a practical approach to minimize this interference.
  9. Comment: The Inferential Information Criterion from a Bayesian Point of View

    As Michael Schultz notes in his very interesting paper (this volume, pp. 52–87), standard model selection criteria, such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike 1974), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Schwarz 1978), and the minimum description length principle (MDL; Rissanen 1978), are purely empirical criteria in the sense that the score a model receives does not depend on how well the model coheres with background theory. This is unsatisfying because we would like our models to be theoretically plausible, not just empirically successful.
  10. Comment: Evidence, Plausibility, and Model Selection

    In his article, Michael Schultz examines the practice of model selection in sociological research. Model selection is often carried out by means of classical hypothesis tests. A fundamental problem with this practice is that these tests do not give a measure of evidence. For example, if we test the null hypothesis β = 0 against the alternative hypothesis β ≠ 0, what is the largest p value that can be regarded as strong evidence against the null hypothesis? What is the largest p value that can be regarded as any kind of evidence against the null hypothesis?