an article by Stephanie L. Budge (University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, USA), Jayden L. Thai (University of Louisville, Louisville, USA), Elliot A. Tebbe (University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, USA) and Kimberly A. S. Howard (Boston University, USA) published in The Counseling Psychologist Volume 44 Number 7 (October 2016)
Abstract
The present study examined patterns in trans individuals’ multiple identities and mental health outcomes.
Cluster 1 (socioeconomic and racial privilege; n = 239) was characterized by individuals who identified as trans women or cross-dressers, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning; had associates degrees; reported household incomes of $60,000 or more a year; and were non-Latino White.
Cluster 2 (educational privilege; n = 191) was characterized by individuals who identified as trans men or genderqueer, gay, or queer; had a bachelor’s degree; reported household incomes of $10,000 or less a year; and were people of color.
There was a pattern of individuals in Cluster 1 who identified with two privileged identities (identifying as White and having higher household incomes), whereas individuals in Cluster 2 identified only formal education as a privilege. Individuals in Cluster 2 reported statistically significant levels of anxiety. Implications of these results for future research and clinical practice are examined.
Full text (PDF)
Showing posts with label cluster_analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cluster_analysis. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
Thursday, 27 December 2012
Welfare regimes and welfare state outcomes in Europe
an article by Andreas Kammer (University of Cologne, Germany), Judith Niehues (Cologne Institute for Economic Research (IW), Germany) and Andreas Peichl (Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Germany) published in Journal of European Social Policy Volume 22 Number 5 (December 2012)
Abstract
Welfare state typologies are generally based on the institutional design of welfare policies.
In this paper we analyse whether such typologies also persist when they are applied to effective redistributive outcomes of welfare states’ tax and transfer policies.
In contrast to the widespread use of macro indicators, our empirical analysis relies on internationally comparable microdata in order to account for the distribution of resources across households. We perform a hierarchical cluster analysis and check whether the classical typology for Western European welfare states reproduces the typical patterns when it comes to effective economic outcomes.
We find that the established welfare regimes not only differ in their welfare state institutions as is known, but also in their economic outcomes. In particular, we identify the social-democratic, conservative, liberal and southern welfare regimes. Belgium and the Netherlands emerge as hybrid cases lying between the social-democratic and conservative model.
Abstract
Welfare state typologies are generally based on the institutional design of welfare policies.
In this paper we analyse whether such typologies also persist when they are applied to effective redistributive outcomes of welfare states’ tax and transfer policies.
In contrast to the widespread use of macro indicators, our empirical analysis relies on internationally comparable microdata in order to account for the distribution of resources across households. We perform a hierarchical cluster analysis and check whether the classical typology for Western European welfare states reproduces the typical patterns when it comes to effective economic outcomes.
We find that the established welfare regimes not only differ in their welfare state institutions as is known, but also in their economic outcomes. In particular, we identify the social-democratic, conservative, liberal and southern welfare regimes. Belgium and the Netherlands emerge as hybrid cases lying between the social-democratic and conservative model.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
The Landscape of Family Business Outcomes: …
A Summary and Numerical Taxonomy of Dependent Variables
an article by Andy Yu (University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, WI, USA), G. T. Lumpkin (Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA), Ritch L. Sorenson (University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and Keith H. Brigham (Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA) published in Family Business Review Volume 25 Number 1 (March 2012)
Abstract
To promote theoretical development in family business research, this research identified 327 dependent/outcome variables used in 257 empirical family business studies in 1998-2009.
In four studies, the authors categorized outcome variables, developed a numerical taxonomy with seven clusters (performance, strategy, social and economic impact, governance, succession, family business roles, and family dynamics) plotted along two dimensions (business–family and short-term–long-term), validated their research, and identified missing outcome variables and variables that deserve more attention.
Experts agree that family business roles, succession, and family dynamics make the family business domain unique and that noneconomic performance and family-specific topics deserve more attention.
an article by Andy Yu (University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, WI, USA), G. T. Lumpkin (Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA), Ritch L. Sorenson (University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and Keith H. Brigham (Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA) published in Family Business Review Volume 25 Number 1 (March 2012)
Abstract
To promote theoretical development in family business research, this research identified 327 dependent/outcome variables used in 257 empirical family business studies in 1998-2009.
In four studies, the authors categorized outcome variables, developed a numerical taxonomy with seven clusters (performance, strategy, social and economic impact, governance, succession, family business roles, and family dynamics) plotted along two dimensions (business–family and short-term–long-term), validated their research, and identified missing outcome variables and variables that deserve more attention.
Experts agree that family business roles, succession, and family dynamics make the family business domain unique and that noneconomic performance and family-specific topics deserve more attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
