skip to main content

Title: Response to comment on “Typical physics Ph.D. admissions criteria limit access to underrepresented groups but fail to predict doctoral completion”
We provide statistical measures and additional analyses showing that our original analyses were sound. We use a generalized linear mixed model to account for program-to-program differences with program as a random effect without stratifying with tier and found the GRE-P (Graduate Record Examination physics test) effect is not different from our previous findings, thereby alleviating concern of collider bias. Variance inflation factors for each variable were low, showing that multicollinearity was not a concern. We show that range restriction is not an issue for GRE-P or GRE-V (GRE verbal), and only a minor issue for GRE-Q (GRE quantitative). Last, we use statistical measures of model quality to show that our published models are better than or equivalent to several alternates.
; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1633275 1834516 1834528
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Science Advances
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Using analysis of variance on a sample consisting of 1,499 US students across 21 US PhD programs, we show that there is no significant difference in the time it takes US male and female physics PhD students to complete their degree programs. This result comes in spite of a statistically significant 18 percentile point gap in median GRE-P scores between genders. Additional analyses reveal that there is no statistical difference between US students reported as White, Black/Hispanic/Multiracial/Native American, and Asian. Expanding our sample to also include 1,143 Non-US students, we find a small but significant effect of citizenship status on time to PhD completion where the average time for Non-US students to complete a physics PhD is about two months less than their US student counterparts. These results show that in spite of known gaps in standardized admissions exams between genders, these differences are not reflected in subsequent graduate school performance. Our findings reinforce the need for graduate admissions committees to go beyond quantitative metrics and conduct a holistic assessment of an applicant's potential to perform research effectively and to earn a PhD.
  2. Abstract The gun embodiment effect is the consequence caused by wielding a gun on judgments of whether others are also holding a gun. This effect could be responsible for real-world instances when police officers shoot an unarmed person because of the misperception that the person had a gun. The gun embodiment effect is an instance of embodied cognition for which a person’s tool-augmented body affects their judgments. The replication crisis in psychology has raised concern about embodied cognition effects in particular, and the issue of low statistical power applies to the original research on the gun embodiment effect.Thus, the first step was to conduct a high-powered replication. We found a significant gun embodiment effect in participants’ reaction times and in their proportion of correct responses, but not in signal detection measures of bias, as had been originally reported. To help prevent the gun embodiment effect from leading to fatal encounters, it would be useful to know whether individuals with certain traits are less prone to the effect and whether certain kinds of experiences help alleviate the effect. With the new and reliable measure of the gun embodiment effect, we tested for moderation by individual differences related to prior gun experience,more »attitudes, personality, and factors related to emotion regulation and impulsivity. Despite the variety of these measures, there was little evidence for moderation. The results were more consistent with the idea of the gun embodiment effect being a universal, fixed effect, than being a flexible, malleable effect.« less
  3. There is a critical need for more students with engineering and computer science majors to enter into, persist in, and graduate from four-year postsecondary institutions. Increasing the diversity of the workforce by inclusive practices in engineering and science is also a profound identified need. According to national statistics, the largest groups of underrepresented minority students in engineering and science attend U.S. public higher education institutions. Most often, a large proportion of these students come to colleges and universities with unique challenges and needs, and are more likely to be first in their family to attend college. In response to these needs, engineering education researchers and practitioners have developed, implemented and assessed interventions to provide support and help students succeed in college, particularly in their first year. These interventions typically target relatively small cohorts of students and can be managed by a small number of faculty and staff. In this paper, we report on “work in progress” research in a large-scale, first-year engineering and computer science intervention program at a public, comprehensive university using multivariate comparative statistical approaches. Large-scale intervention programs are especially relevant to minority serving institutions that prepare growing numbers of students who are first in their family tomore »attend college and who are also under-resourced, financially. These students most often encounter academic difficulties and come to higher education with challenging experiences and backgrounds. Our studied first-year intervention program, first piloted in 2015, is now in its 5th year of implementation. Its intervention components include: (a) first-year block schedules, (b) project-based introductory engineering and computer science courses, (c) an introduction to mechanics course, which provides students with the foundation needed to succeed in a traditional physics sequence, and (d) peer-led supplemental instruction workshops for calculus, physics and chemistry courses. This intervention study responds to three research questions: (1) What role does the first-year intervention’s components play in students’ persistence in engineering and computer science majors across undergraduate program years? (2) What role do particular pedagogical and cocurricular support structures play in students’ successes? And (3) What role do various student socio-demographic and experiential factors play in the effectiveness of first-year interventions? To address these research questions and therefore determine the formative impact of the firstyear engineering and computer science program on which we are conducting research, we have collected diverse student data including grade point averages, concept inventory scores, and data from a multi-dimensional questionnaire that measures students’ use of support practices across their four to five years in their degree program, and diverse background information necessary to determine the impact of such factors on students’ persistence to degree. Background data includes students’ experiences prior to enrolling in college, their socio-demographic characteristics, and their college social capital throughout their higher education experience. For this research, we compared students who were enrolled in the first-year intervention program to those who were not enrolled in the first-year intervention. We have engaged in cross-sectional 2 data collection from students’ freshman through senior years and employed multivariate statistical analytical techniques on the collected student data. Results of these analyses were interesting and diverse. Generally, in terms of backgrounds, our research indicates that students’ parental education is positively related to their success in engineering and computer science across program years. Likewise, longitudinally (across program years), students’ college social capital predicted their academic success and persistence to degree. With regard to the study’s comparative research of the first-year intervention, our results indicate that students who were enrolled in the first-year intervention program as freshmen continued to use more support practices to assist them in academic success across their degree matriculation compared to students who were not in the first-year program. This suggests that the students continued to recognize the value of such supports as a consequence of having supports required as first-year students. In terms of students’ understanding of scientific or engineering-focused concepts, we found significant impact resulting from student support practices that were academically focused. We also found that enrolling in the first-year intervention was a significant predictor of the time that students spent preparing for classes and ultimately their grade point average, especially in STEM subjects across students’ years in college. In summary, we found that the studied first-year intervention program has longitudinal, positive impacts on students’ success as they navigate through their undergraduate experiences toward engineering and computer science degrees.« less
  4. Aim In contrast to studies of defects found during code review, we aim to clarify whether code review measures can explain the prevalence of post-release defects. Method We replicate McIntosh et al.’s (Empirical Softw. Engg. 21(5): 2146–2189, 2016) study that uses additive regression to model the relationship between defects and code reviews. To increase external validity, we apply the same methodology on a new software project. We discuss our findings with the first author of the original study, McIntosh. We then investigate how to reduce the impact of correlated predictors in the variable selection process and how to increase understanding of the inter-relationships among the predictors by employing Bayesian Network (BN) models. Context As in the original study, we use the same measures authors obtained for Qt project in the original study. We mine data from version control and issue tracker of Google Chrome and operationalize measures that are close analogs to the large collection of code, process, and code review measures used in the replicated the study. Results Both the data from the original study and the Chrome data showed high instability of the influence of code review measures on defects with the results being highly sensitive to variablemore »selection procedure. Models without code review predictors had as good or better fit than those with review predictors. Replication, however, confirms with the bulk of prior work showing that prior defects, module size, and authorship have the strongest relationship to post-release defects. The application of BN models helped explain the observed instability by demonstrating that the review-related predictors do not affect post-release defects directly and showed indirect effects. For example, changes that have no review discussion tend to be associated with files that have had many prior defects which in turn increase the number of post-release defects. We hope that similar analyses of other software engineering techniques may also yield a more nuanced view of their impact. Our replication package including our data and scripts is publicly available (Replication package 2018).« less
  5. Musculoskeletal conditions such as low back pain, arthritis and other diseases of the joints affect millions of people around the world and are one the leading causes of disability (1). These diseases often require surgery, including total joint replacement in cases of deterioration of the natural joint (2). Serious concern regarding such procedure is the bacteria adhesion and proliferate on the surfaces of these orthopedic implants. Moreover, bacteria have shown the ability to generate resistance against drugs that once could kill them, hence, being more difficult or even impossible to eliminate them. These pathogens are the principal causative agents of two major types of infection in bone: septic arthritis and osteomyelitis, which involve the inflammatory destruction of joint and bone (3). Therefore, there is an unmet need to generate materials capable of showing reduced bacterial adhesion as well as bactericidal effect in order to avoid further health complications. nanoSUS Bio-Tech was founded based on a collaboration between Komatsuseiki Kosakusho Co., Ltd (KSJ:Japan) and Northeastern University (NEU) in 2019. KSJ has been developing ultra-fine-grained stainless steel since 2002 (4, 5). Using this technology, we are able to control the grain size without any changes in the chemical composition of commercially availablemore »FDA approved stainless steel. On the other hand, Thomas J. Webster’s lab has achieved the ability to decrease bacteria adhesion and growth with and without the use of antibiotics, for nanostructured surfaces. As an outcome of this collaboration, we were able to manufacture high strength ultra-fine-grained stainless steel with antimicrobial surface. The global orthopedic implants market was estimated at $45.90 billion in 2017 and is expected to reach at $66.63 billion by 2025, registering a CAGR of 4.7% from 2018 to 2025 (6), due to the growing demand by increasing geriatric population, rising incidence of spine illness and technological advancements in this field. Based on geography, North America accounted for nearly half of the total market revenue in 2017 and is anticipated to retain its top status till 2025. At the same time, the Asia-Pacific region would cite the fastest CAGR of 6.4% throughout the study period. Based on current market trends, companies such as Zimmer, Stryker, S&N, Depuy, J&J, and Medtronic are our target customers. Currently, we are expanding our network in the US by becoming member of Center for Disruptive Musculoskeletal Innovations (CDMI). Moreover, this project is funded through CDMI NSF program that will aid to expand the collaboration between KSJ and NEU. The company will be established by financing from KSJ, in Boston, MA. It will manage the collaborations between academia, marketing consultants and lawyers in the US, and directors and researchers in Japan and the US. We are expecting to start our sales from the beginning of 2021.« less