Topic
Subgroup test
About: Subgroup test is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 6 publications have been published within this topic receiving 36 citations.
Papers
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, a Monte Carlo study examined how enhancing Blacks' test-taking motivation for cognitive ability tests might reduce adverse impact across a range of subgroup test differences, selection ratios, subgroup differences in test taking motivation, and relationships between motivation and test scores.
Abstract: Research suggests that Black-White differences in test-taking motivation may be related to subgroup test score differences, but this research has not shown the extent to which minimizing subgroup motivation differences will reduce subgroup differences in selection rates and adverse impact. This Monte Carlo study examined how enhancing Blacks' test-taking motivation for cognitive ability tests might reduce adverse impact across a range of (a) subgroup test differences, (b) selection ratios, (c) subgroup differences in test-taking motivation, and (d) relationships between motivation and test scores. The results suggest that although enhancing test-taking motivation will consistently reduce subgroup differences in test performance and adverse impact, the effect is often small and will not eliminate adverse impact for any condition we examine. However, under some conditions the reduction may be important, and the discussion considers conditions where even these minimal reductions may be practically helpful.
11 citations
Patent•
28 Oct 1968TL;DR: In this paper, a scan circuit arrangement for scanning test terminals respectively connected to subscriber's lines and disposed along rows and columns in a matrix, the purpose of which is to detect by means of a unique scanning the service requests and the dial pulses.
Abstract: Scanning circuit arrangement for scanning test terminals respectively connected to subscriber''s lines and disposed along rows and columns in a matrix, the purpose of which is to detect by means of a unique scanning the service requests and the dial pulses. The terminals are scanned in groups defined by a group address and forming group test words, at a first rate, and the groups are divided into subgroups defined by a subgroup address and forming subgroup test words, at a second rate multiple of the first rate. The subgroup test words are stored in the registers of a test multiregister and the actual and previous subgroup test words are compared in a comparator which detects the rank or address of the bits in the subgroup test word which have undergone a change. The address of the test terminal including the group address, the subgroup address and the bit address are applied to a second multiregister which comprises a plurality of originating registers and a table of correspondence between the test terminal addresses and the originating register addresses. From the test terminal address, the second multiregister derives the originating register address and the change of the test terminal is written in this originating register.
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed a joint hypothesis test for simultaneous confirmatory inference in the overall population and a pre-defined marker-positive subgroup under the assumption that the treatment effect in the marker positive subgroup is larger than that in the whole population.
Abstract: We propose a joint hypothesis test for simultaneous confirmatory inference in the overall population and a pre-defined marker-positive subgroup under the assumption that the treatment effect in the marker-positive subgroup is larger than that in the overall population. The proposed confirmatory overall-subgroup simultaneous test (COSST) is based on partitioning the sample space of the test statistics in the marker-positive and marker-negative subgroups. We define two rejection regions in the joint sample space of the two test statistics: (1) efficacy in the marker-positive subgroup only; (2) efficacy in the overall population. COSST achieves higher statistical power to detect the overall and subgroup efficacy than most sequential procedures while controlling the family-wise type I error rate. COSST also takes into account the potentially harmful effect in the subgroups in the decision. The optimal rejection regions depend on the specific alternative hypothesis and the sample size. COSST can be useful for Phase III clinical trials with tailoring objectives.
4 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this article, a subgroup description and regression analysis on the largest shareholders based on cross-sectional sample data of Chinese listed companies in 2005 was performed, and it was found that listed companies would be undervalued by 481% if their largest shareholders were state-owned shareholders and overvalued by 130% if they were common institutions.
Abstract: By means of subgroup description and regression analysis on the largest shareholders based on cross-sectional sample data of Chinese listed companies in 2005,it is found that listed companies would be undervalued by 481% if their largest shareholders were state-owned shareholders and overvalued by 130% if they were common institutionsThe effects of largest shareholders on corporate value are state-contingentAnd the best ownership structure belongs to the companies with lower proportions of state-owned shares and largest shareholders of common institution
4 citations
TL;DR: The drug–biomarker coevaluation based on a series of independent enrichment trials can result in a high risk of false-positive findings, and CVASD with some appropriate adjustments can be a good alternative to overcome this multiplicity issue.
Abstract: Purpose: When there is more than one potentially predictive biomarker for a new drug, the drug is often evaluated in different subpopulations defined by different biomarkers We aim to (i) estimate the risk of false-positive findings with this approach and (ii) evaluate the cross-validated adaptive signature design (CVASD) as a potential alternative Experimental Design: By using numerically simulated data, we compare the current approach and the CVASD across different settings and scenarios We consider three strategies for CVASD The first two CVASD strategies are different in terms of the partitioning of the overall significance level (between the population test and the subgroup test) In the third CVASD strategy, the order of the two tests is reversed, that is, the population test is realized when the prioritized subgroup test is not statistically significant Results: The current approach results in a high risk of false-positive findings, whereas this risk is close to the nominal level of 5% once applying the CVASD, regardless of the strategy When the treatment is equally effective to all patients, only the CVASD strategies could specify correctly the absence of a sensitive subgroup When the treatment is only effective for some sensitive responders, the third CVASD strategy stands out by its ability to correctly identify the predictive biomarker(s) Conclusion: The drug–biomarker coevaluation based on a series of independent enrichment trials can result in a high risk of false-positive findings CVASD with some appropriate adjustments can be a good alternative to overcome this multiplicity issue Clin Cancer Res; 1–8 ©2018 AACR
2 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2018 | 2 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 1968 | 1 |