In the light of an increasing interest in the accountability of public institutions, this paper sets out the statistical issues involved in making quantitative comparisons between institutions in the areas of health and education. We deal in detail with the need to take account of model-based uncertainty in making comparisons. We discuss the need to establish appropriate measures of institutional `outcomes' and base-line measures and the need to exercise care and sensitivity when interpreting apparent differences. The paper emphasizes that statistical methods exist which can contribute to an understanding of the extent and possible reasons for differences between institutions. It also urges caution by discussing the limitations of such methods.
Originally called the Journal of the Statistical Society of London when founded in 1838 and renamed the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society when the Society was granted its Royal Charter in 1887, what is now known as Series A of the journal (Statistics in Society) is essentially a journal of general statistical interest. It publishes papers whose appeal lies in their subject-matter rather than their technical statistical content. Medical, social, educational, legal, demographic and governmental issues are of particular concern. The journal encourages serious statistical thinking on issues of importance to society, especially on substantive matters aimed at taking debate outside the confines of the statistical profession. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A: Statistics in Society. The electronic version of Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A: Statistics in Society is available at http://www.interscience.wiley.com. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site.
Wiley is a global provider of content and content-enabled workflow solutions in areas of scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly research; professional development; and education. Our core businesses produce scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, reference works, books, database services, and advertising; professional books, subscription products, certification and training services and online applications; and education content and services including integrated online teaching and learning resources for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. has been a valued source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people around the world meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. Wiley has published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in all categories: Literature, Economics, Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace. Wiley has partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies and publishes over 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols in STMS subjects. With a growing open access offering, Wiley is committed to the widest possible dissemination of and access to the content we publish and supports all sustainable models of access. Our online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities.
This item is part of JSTOR collection
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society)
© 1996 Royal Statistical Society
Request Permissions
