High-growth firms and productivity:evidence from the United Kingdom

Abstract There is considerable evidence that high-growth firms (HGFs) contribute significantly to employment and economic growth. However, the literature so far does not adequately explore the link between HGFs and productivity. This paper investigates the empirical link between total factor productivity (TFP) growth and HGFs, defined in terms of sales growth, in the United Kingdom over the period 2001-2010, by examining two related research questions. Firstly, does higher TFP growth lead to HGF status and secondly, does HGF experience help firms achieve faster TFP growth? Our findings reveal that firms in both the manufacturing and services sectors are more likely to become HGFs when they exhibit higher TFP growth. In addition, firms that have had HGF experience tend to enjoy faster TFP growth following the high-growth episodes. Policy implications are drawn based on the self-reinforcing process of the high-growth phenomenon that is revealed by our results

Reporting and Concordance of Methodologic Criteria Between Abstracts and Articles in Diagnostic Test Studies

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and concordance of methodologic criteria in abstracts versus articles regarding the diagnosis of trichomoniasis. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of published literature. DATA SOURCES: Studies indexed in medline(1976–1998). STUDY SELECTION: Studies that used culture as the gold or reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from abstract and articles were independently abstracted using 4 methodologic criteria: (1) prospective evaluation of consecutive patients; (2) test results did not influence the decision to do gold standard; (3) independent and blind comparison with gold standard; and (4) broad spectrum of patients used. The total number of criteria met for each report was calculated to create a quality score (0–4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: None of the 33 abstracts or full articles reported all 4 criteria. Three criteria were reported in none of the abstracts and in 18% of articles (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.6% to 34%). Two criteria were reported in 18% of abstracts (95% CI, 8.6% to 34%) and 42% of articles (95% CI, 27% to 59%). One criterion was reported in 42% of abstracts (95% CI, 27% to 59%) and 27% of articles (95% CI, 15% to 44%). No criteria were reported in 13 (39%) of 33 abstracts (95% CI, 25% to 56%) and 4 (12%) of 33 articles (95% CI, 4.8% to 27%). The agreement of the criteria between the abstract and the article was poor (κ−0.09; 95% CI, −0.18 to 0) to moderate (κ 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Information on methods basic to study validity is often absent from both abstract and paper. The concordance of such criteria between the abstract and article needs to improve