Timeline Follow-Back Versus Global Self-Reports of Tobacco Smoking: A Comparison of Findings With Non-Daily Smokers

Methods assessing non-daily smoking are of concern because biochemical measures can not verify self-reports beyond 7 days. This study compares two self-reported smoking measures for non-daily smokers. A total of 389 college students, (48% female, 96% white, mean age of 19) smoking between 1 and 29 days out of the past 30, completed computer assessments in three cohorts with the order of administration of the measures counterbalanced. Values from the two measures were highly correlated. Comparisons of Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) with the global questions for the total sample of non-daily smokers yielded statistically significant differences (p\u3c.001), albeit small, between measures with the TLFB resulting on average in 2.38 more total cigarettes smoked out of the past 30 days, 0.46 less smoking days, and 0.21 more cigarettes smoked per day. Analyses by level of smoking showed that the discordance between the measures differed by frequency of smoking. Global questions of days smoked resulted in frequent reporting in multiples of five days, suggesting digit bias. Overall the two measures of smoking were highly correlated and equally effective for identifying any smoking in a 30-day period among non-daily smokers

A conversation about implicit bias

Explicit bias reflects our perceptions at a conscious level. In contrast, implicit bias is unintentional and operates at a level below our conscious awareness. Implicit stereotypes shaping implicit biases are widely studied in criminal justice, medicine, CEO selection at Fortune 500 companies, etc. However, the problem of unconscious bias remains. E.g., while women constitute an increasing proportion of all STEM undergraduates, they still make up only a small proportion of faculty members at research universities, and they are substantially under-represented in organizational leadership and as recipients of professional awards and prizes. Can we afford to have unintentional perceptions continue to hinder the success and advancement of women and other underrepresented groups? Can we afford to continue to underuse human capital in science? This session at the 2015 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM) aimed to illuminate what statisticians need to know and do to break the glass ceiling of implicit bias

The international wheelchair basketball federation’s classification system: the participants’ perspective

The purpose of this exploratory study was to evaluate opinions of elite athletes, coaches and classifiers regarding the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation’s (IWBF) functional classification system. We were also interested in the athletes’ perspective regarding potential changes to the classification system. In addition, we compared the generalized opinions reported by the athletes to those of coaches and classification officers. This survey was administered during the Wheelchair Basketball Gold Cup (Amsterdam, 2006). Seventy-nine athletes, 50 men and 29 women, as well as 12 coaches and 14 classifiers completed the survey. The first part of the survey addressed demographic characteristics of the participants. The second part focused on their opinions regarding the current classification system. Based on the survey responses, athletes reported that the IWBF classification system is generally satisfactory. However, athletes as well as coaches and classification officers did report some specific concerns about this classification system. These concerns included changes in an athlete classification, athlete cheating and communication between classifiers and athletes. Athletes, coaches and classifiers, as the wheelchair basketball’s primary constituent groups, have a vested interest in the evolution of the game and should be included in the evaluation and modifications to the functional classification system. This study has demonstrated that a classification specific survey could provide useful information and insight into the perspectives of these constituent groups