Estimating Fixed Effects: Perfect Prediction and Bias in Binary Response Panel Models, with an Application to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

The maximum likelihood estimator for the regression coefficients, β, in a panel binary response model with fixed effects can be severely biased if N is large and T is small, a consequence of the incidental parameters problem. This has led to the development of conditional maximum likelihood estimators and, more recently, to estimators that remove the O(T–1) bias in β^. We add to this literature in two important ways. First, we focus on estimation of the fixed effects proper, as these have become increasingly important in applied work. Second, we build on a bias-reduction approach originally developed by Kosmidis and Firth (2009) for cross-section data, and show that in contrast to other proposals, the new estimator ensures finiteness of the fixed effects even in the absence of within-unit variation in the outcome. Results from a simulation study document favourable small sample properties. In an application to hospital data on patient readmission rates under the 2010 Affo

A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine

Abstract Background Empathy is frequently cited as an important attribute in physicians and some groups have expressed a desire to measure empathy either at selection for medical school or during medical (or postgraduate) training. In order to do this, a reliable and valid test of empathy is required. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the reliability and validity of existing tests for the assessment of medical empathy. Methods A systematic review of research papers relating to the reliability and validity of tests of empathy in medical students and doctors. Journal databases (Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for English-language articles relating to the assessment of empathy and related constructs in applicants to medical school, medical students, and doctors. Results From 1147 citations, we identified 50 relevant papers describing 36 different instruments of empathy measurement. As some papers assessed more than one instrument, there were 59 instrument assessments. 20 of these involved only medical students, 30 involved only practising clinicians, and three involved only medical school applicants. Four assessments involved both medical students and practising clinicians, and two studies involved both medical school applicants and students. Eight instruments demonstrated evidence of reliability, internal consistency, and validity. Of these, six were self-rated measures, one was a patient-rated measure, and one was an observer-rated measure. Conclusion A number of empathy measures available have been psychometrically assessed for research use among medical students and practising medical doctors. No empathy measures were found with sufficient evidence of predictive validity for use as selection measures for medical school. However, measures with a sufficient evidential base to support their use as tools for investigating the role of empathy in medical training and clinical care are available.</p