14 research outputs found
Bayesian reassessment of the epigenetic architecture of complex traits
Linking epigenetic marks to clinical outcomes improves insight into molecular processes, disease prediction, and therapeutic target identification. Here, a statistical approach is presented to infer the epigenetic architecture of complex disease, determine the variation captured by epigenetic effects, and estimate phenotype-epigenetic probe associations jointly. Implicitly adjusting for probe correlations, data structure (cell-count or relatedness), and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker effects, improves association estimates and in 9,448 individuals, 75.7% (95% CI 71.70–79.3) of body mass index (BMI) variation and 45.6% (95% CI 37.3–51.9) of cigarette consumption variation was captured by whole blood methylation array data. Pathway-linked probes of blood cholesterol, lipid transport and sterol metabolism for BMI, and xenobiotic stimuli response for smoking, showed >1.5 times larger associations with >95% posterior inclusion probability. Prediction accuracy improved by 28.7% for BMI and 10.2% for smoking over a LASSO model, with age-, and tissue-specificity, implying associations are a phenotypic consequence rather than causal
Recommended from our members
Policy Instruments in Service of Performance Funding: A Study of Performance Funding in Three States
This study examines the primary policy instruments through which state performance funding systems influence higher education institutions in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors interviewed personnel at nine community colleges and nine universities about the use of four policy instruments: (1) financial incentives, (2) communication of program goals and methods, (3) communication about institutional performance, and (4) enhancement of colleges’ capacities to improve student outcomes. The authors examine the immediate impacts of these instruments on college budgets, campus awareness of performance funding goals and institutional performance, and institutional capacity, as well as their impacts on efforts to improve student outcomes.
In all three states, policymakers relied mainly on financial incentives to induce change at community college and university campuses. State officials also made efforts to communicate with campus leaders and staff about performance funding and institutional performance, though these efforts varied in their intensity and their level of campus penetration. The authors find very limited evidence of state efforts to build campus-level capacity for organizational learning and change. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution
Recommended from our members
Looking Inside the Black Box of Performance Funding for Higher Education: Policy Instruments, Outcomes, Obstacles, and Unintended Impacts
For several decades, policymakers have been concerned about increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of postsecondary institutions. In recent years, performance funding—which directly connects state funding to an institution’s performance on indicators such as student persistence, credit accrual, and college completion—has become a particularly attractive way of pursuing better college outcomes. But even as states have made an enormous investment in performance funding, troubling questions have been raised about whether performance funding has the effects intended and whether it also produces substantial negative side effects in the form of restrictions in access for underrepresented students and weakening of academic standards. This paper addresses these troubling questions by drawing on data richer than heretofore available. In addition to drawing on the existing body of research on performance funding, it reports data from a study of the implementation of performance funding in three leading states (Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee) and its impacts on three universities and three community colleges in each state
Recommended from our members
Institutional Changes to Organizational Policies, Practices, and Programs Following the Adoption of State-Level Performance Funding Policies
In this paper, the authors describe findings from a large, qualitative case study of the implementation of performance funding for higher education in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Specifically, they address ways that universities and community colleges of varying levels of institutional capacity have altered their academic and student services policies, practices, and programs to improve student outcomes and to achieve the goals of their states’ higher education performance funding programs.
Most of the academic changes identified concerned developmental education, course articulation, and ease of transfer. Most of the student services changes identified were related to advising, tutoring and supplemental instruction, orientation and first-year programs, tuition and financial aid policies, registration and graduation procedures, and departmental organization. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. Although evidence indicates that performance funding did have an impact on institutional behavior, so did other external influences concurrently seeking to improve colleges’ institutional outcomes. Thus, it is difficult to disaggregate the influence of performance funding from that of other initiatives
Recommended from our members
Obstacles to the Effective Implementation of Performance Funding: A Multistate Cross-Case Analysis
This paper examines the major obstacles that hinder higher education institutions from responding effectively to the demands of performance funding 2.0 programs, in which performance funding is embedded in base state allocations to institutions rather than taking the form of a bonus. The authors interviewed administrators and faculty at nine community colleges and nine universities in three states with notable examples of performance funding 2.0 programs: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Across the three states, public colleges and universities experienced the performance funding programs in different ways, but respondents predominantly indicated that student body composition, inappropriate performance funding measures, and insufficient institutional capacity most often made it difficult for their institutions to respond to performance funding. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. The authors draw on policy implementation theory and principal-agent theory to explain why the local response to performance funding programs may deviate from the directions intended by policy framers, and they offer policy suggestions aimed at reducing the obstacles to performance funding implementation
Recommended from our members
Unintended Impacts of Performance Funding on Community Colleges and Universities in Three States
This paper identifies and analyzes the types and numbers of unintended impacts—actual or potential—of state performance funding policies on higher education institutions. The authors conducted telephone interviews with senior administrators, mid-level academic and non-academic administrators, and department chairs at nine community colleges and nine universities in three states: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. This paper discusses the types of unintended impacts that interviewees reported as resulting from performance funding programs, making a distinction between impacts that the authors judge as actually occurring and ones that were stated as possibilities.
The unintended impacts most frequently mentioned were restrictions in admissions to college and a weakening of academic standards. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. The paper closes with policy recommendations to address these unintended impacts
Recommended from our members
Implementing Performance Funding in Three Leading States: Instruments, Outcomes, Obstacles, and Unintended Impacts
This paper summarizes findings from a large study on the implementation and impacts of performance funding in three states that are regarded as leaders in that movement: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Based on interviews with state officials and with staff at 18 colleges and universities, the authors describe the policy instruments used to implement performance funding, the impact of performance funding on institutional policies and programs, the obstacles institutions encountered in responding to performance funding demands, and the unintended impacts that ensued.
While performance funding spurred institutions to make changes designed to improve student outcomes, it is difficult to gauge the impact of performance funding because it was one of several concurrent initiatives aimed at improving outcomes at the colleges. Interviewees reported several obstacles that hindered institutions’ efforts to respond to performance funding demands, including the composition of their student bodies, inappropriate metrics, and insufficient institutional capacity. Interviewees also frequently reported observed and potential impacts that were not intended by the policy designers, such as restrictions in college admissions and the weakening of academic standards
Recommended from our members
Envisioning Performance Funding Impacts: The Espoused Theories of Action for State Higher Education Performance Funding in Three States
This study reviews the theories of action that advocates of performance funding have espoused for higher education in three states that are leaders in performance funding: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors found that espoused theories of action are incompletely articulated, with significant gaps in the specification of policy instruments, desired institutional changes, and possible obstacles and unintended impacts. Performance funding is conceived largely as stimulating changes in institutional behavior and student outcomes by providing financial inducements and securing institutional buy-in. Less attention is paid to other policy instruments, such as providing information on institutional performance to the colleges and building up the capacity of institutions to engage in organizational learning and change. The authors of this paper argue that insufficiently articulating the theories of action for performance funding makes it less likely that it will be successful and avoid undue harm
Recommended from our members
The Political Origins of Performance Funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparisons With Performance Funding 1.0
A new form of performance funding often called performance funding 2.0 (PF 2.0) represents a major shift in performance funding. Unlike earlier forms of performance funding that took the form of a bonus on top of the base state funding for higher education, PF 2.0 is embedded into the base funding itself. PF 2.0 programs are seen as promising means to significantly improve institutional performance due to the fact that they typically tie a larger portion of state funding to performance indicators than do PF 1.0 programs. Additionally, PF 2.0 programs aim to be more stable than PF 1.0 programs, as PF 2.0 performance indicators are written into the regular state funding formula itself and are not separate programs that can be easily dropped. Using three perspectives within policy theory—the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy Entrepreneurship theory, and policy diffusion theory—this paper examines the political forces supporting the enactment of PF 2.0 in three leading states and compares these forces with those involved in the enactment of PF 1.0 performance funding programs
Recommended from our members
Organizational Learning by Colleges Responding to Performance Funding: Deliberative Structures and Their Challenges
This paper identifies and analyzes the deliberative structures used by colleges and universities to respond to performance funding demands and the factors that aid and hinder their working. Our data come from telephone interviews with over 200 college personnel at nine community colleges and nine public universities in three states: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The respondents were senior administrators, middle-level administrators, academic deans, and department chairs at these institutions. Our investigation found that colleges use a variety of deliberative structures, including both their general administrative structures and more specialized and evanescent structures such as strategic planning committees and accreditation review committees, to engage in organizational learning. The aids and hindrances to effective deliberation that colleges encounter principally involve organizational commitment and leadership, effective communication and collaboration, timely and relevant data, and enough time for deliberation