Panel on future challenges in modeling methodology

This panel paper presents the views of six researchers and practitioners of simulation modeling. Collectively we attempt to address a range of key future challenges to modeling methodology. It is hoped that the views of this paper, and the presentations made by the panelists at the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference will raise awareness and stimulate further discussion on the future of modeling methodology in areas such as modeling problems in business applications, human factors and geographically dispersed networks; rapid model development and maintenance; legacy modeling approaches; markup languages; virtual interactive process design and simulation; standards; and Grid computing

RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations

Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project's aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations.We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments.We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively.These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders

Biophotonic Tools in Cell and Tissue Diagnostics.

In order to maintain the rapid advance of biophotonics in the U.S. and enhance our competitiveness worldwide, key measurement tools must be in place. As part of a wide-reaching effort to improve the U.S. technology base, the National Institute of Standards and Technology sponsored a workshop titled "Biophotonic tools for cell and tissue diagnostics." The workshop focused on diagnostic techniques involving the interaction between biological systems and photons. Through invited presentations by industry representatives and panel discussion, near- and far-term measurement needs were evaluated. As a result of this workshop, this document has been prepared on the measurement tools needed for biophotonic cell and tissue diagnostics. This will become a part of the larger measurement road-mapping effort to be presented to the Nation as an assessment of the U.S. Measurement System. The information will be used to highlight measurement needs to the community and to facilitate solutions

The Standards\u27 Recommendations on Dispositions: A Panel Discussion Panel Discussion

ROFESSOR STANLEY FISHER, MODERATOR: Good evening. I\u27d like to welcome you all here. Of all of the volumes of the Juvenile Justice Standards Project, I suppose the most controversial are those dealing with the disposition stage. They have elicited a good deal of critical comment, even though they haven\u27t yet been published, and many of the comments and criticisms have apparently been on the basis of speculation and rumor as to what the Standards actually say. We have with us tonight to discuss these Standards two persons who have a great deal of expertise in this field. The first, on my left, is Judge Howard Levine of the Family Court in Schenectady, New York, who has been in that position for the past seven years. Before that, for some ten years he was District Attorney in Schenectady. On my right is Professor Fred Cohen, Professor of Law at the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. Professor Cohen is the Editor-in-Chief of the Criminal Law Bulletin and was the reporter responsible for the Juvenile Justice Standards Project volume on Dispositional Procedures, which is one of the four volumes that are most relevant to the dispositional stage. Our format tonight is first to ask Judge Levine and then Professor Cohen to give their views of the major changes that they see being proposed in these volumes and to give a summary evaluation of those changes. After that we will continue our discussion and at appropriate times entertain questions from the floor

The role of the IASB and auditing standards in the aftermath of the 2008/2009 Financial Crisis

This paper considers areas in which the regulation and enforcement of accounting standards, and auditing standards in particular, have contributed to the recent global financial crisis. As well as the impact of such standards on pro cyclicality, the level of success achieved by international standard setters such as the Basel Committee for Banking Supervisors, relates to how effectively the accounting and audit standard setting is implemented. Collaboration between authorities such as CESR (Committee of European Securities Regulators), CEBS (Committee of European Banking Supervisors), and CEIOPS (Committee of European Insurance and Occupation Pensions Supervisors), as identified by the Report of the High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU, is also vital in determining how far the IASB is able to achieve its goals. As well as identifying the importance of convergence in contributing towards high quality audits and the consistent application of auditing and accounting standards, this paper also acknowledges the difficulties and challenges encountered in attempting to achieve a convergent framework. Furthermore, through a discussion of recommendations aimed at consolidating transparency and accounting, as proposed by the G20, ways in which accounting standards, and consequently the IASB, could contribute further to the improvement of transparency and accountability of the framework for fair value measurements and evaluation, are considered. However some factors still present sources of obstacles to the IASB’s attempts to realise the proposals put forward by the G20. This paper not only attempts to address such factors, but also to suggest ways in which the IASB, to an extent, could realise its goals. The IASB at present, has no enforcement mechanism. Enforcement actions are carried out at national level in various EU member states. Through a consideration of two enforcement regimes in Europe, namely, Germany and the UK, two related standards which govern enforcement in Europe, principles on which harmonisation of the institutional oversight systems in Europe may be achieved , and the vital contribution made by CESR and EFRAG (the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group), this paper will consider how enforcement could be implemented by the IASB at European level. Enforcement at European level is also important having regards to results of the peer review, which was carried out by CESR’s peer pressure group, the Review Panel, in July 2009.regulation; auditors; standards; IASB; EFRAG; 2008/09 Financial Crisis

Evaluation of the NAS-ILAB Matrix for Monitoring International Labor Standards: Project Report

The Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) engaged the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to recommend a method to monitor and evaluate labor conditions in a given country. The method focuses on 5 labor standards: freedom of association and collective bargaining, forced or compulsory labor, child labor, discrimination, and acceptable conditions of work

Standard setting in Australian medical schools

Background: Standard setting of assessment is critical in quality assurance of medical programs. The aims of this study were to identify and compare the impact of methods used to establish the passing standard by the 13 medical schools who participated in the 2014 Australian Medical Schools Assessment Collaboration (AMSAC). Methods: A survey was conducted to identify the standard setting procedures used by participating schools. Schools standard setting data was collated for the 49 multiple choice items used for benchmarking by AMSAC in 2014. Analyses were conducted for nine schools by their method of standard setting and key characteristics of 28 panel members from four schools. Results: Substantial differences were identified between AMSAC schools that participated in the study, in both the standard setting methods and how particular techniques were implemented. The correlation between the item standard settings data by school ranged from − 0.116 to 0.632. A trend was identified for panel members to underestimate the difficulty level of hard items and overestimate the difficulty level of easy items for all methods. The median derived cut-score standard across schools was 55% for the 49 benchmarking questions. Although, no significant differences were found according to panel member standard setting experience or clinicians versus scientists, panel members with a high curriculum engagement generally had significantly lower expectations of borderline candidates (p = 0.044). Conclusion: This study used a robust assessment framework to demonstrate that several standard setting techniques are used by Australian medical schools, which in some cases use different techniques for different stages of their program. The implementation of the most common method, the Modified Angoff standard setting approach was found to vary markedly. The method of standard setting used had an impact on the distribution of expected minimally competent student performance by item and overall, with the passing standard varying by up to 10%. This difference can be attributed to the method of standard setting because the ASMSAC items have been shown over time to have consistent performance levels reflecting similar cohort ability. There is a need for more consistency in the method of standard setting used by medical schools in Australia

International lease accounting reform and economic consequences: the views of UK users and preparers

In response to perceived difficulties with extant lease-accounting standards in operation worldwide, the G4+1 issued a discussion paper which proposes that all leases should be recognized on the balance sheet [ASB (1999). Leases: Implementation of a new approach, discussion paper. London: Accounting Standards Board]. Leasing is now on the active agenda of the IASB. A major difficulty faced by standard setters lies in overcoming the preparer/user lobbying imbalance and obtaining ex ante evidence on the likely impact of regulatory reform. This paper contributes to the ongoing international debate by conducting a questionnaire survey of U.K. users and preparers to assess their views on proposals for lease-accounting reform and on the potential economic consequences of their adoption. The results, based on 132 responses, indicate that both groups accept that there are deficiencies in the current rules, but they do not agree on the way forward and believe that the proposals would lead to significant economic consequences for key parties. The impact on respondents' views of familiarity with the proposals, level of lease usage, and company size, is also examined

Evaluating inputs for organic farming – a new system. Proposals of the ORGANIC INPUTS EVALUATION project

This volume contains proposals for criteria for evaluation of plant protection products, fertilisers and soil conditioners1 to be used in organic agriculture. These ideas were developed in the course of the European Union (EU) Concerted Action project ‘ORGANIC INPUTS EVALUATION’ (QLK5-CT-2002-02565). For more information on this project see the end of this volume or visit the project website www.organicinputs.org. The documents in this volume are proposals elaborated by the project consortium and external experts. They were discussed with a broader audience at a public conference held in Brussels on October 13, 2005, and have been amended accordingly. Our proposals also include a “criteria matrix”, which is in Microsoft Excel format, and therefore stands as a separate file. The criteria matrix is discussed in section 5, but we strongly recommend that you consult the original document. To illustrate the use of the matrix, we have further prepared two case studies, which are also separate Excel files. All of these files are contained on the CD, and can also be downloaded from the project website. Currently, Regulation 2092/91 is under revision. We hope that our ideas can be incorporated into the regulation during this revision! In addition, we strongly encourage national institutions to make use of our proposals at the national level