The appreciative democratic voice of DEA: A case of faculty academic performance evaluation

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is in fact more than just being an instrument for measuring the relative efficiencies of a group of decision making units (DMU). DEA models are also means of expressing appreciative democratic voices of DMUs. This paper proposes a methodology for allocating premium points to a group of professors using three models sequentially: (1) a DEA model for appreciative academic self-evaluation, (2) a DEA model for appreciative academic cross-evaluation, and (3) a Non-DEA model for academic rating of professors for the purpose of premium allocations. The premium results, called DEA results, are then compared with the premium points “nurtured” by the Dean, called N bonus points. After comparing DEA results and N bonus points, the Dean reassessed his initial bonus points and provided new ones – called DEA-N decisions. The experience indicates that judgmental decisions (Dean's evaluations) can be enhanced by making use of formal models (DEA and Non-DEA models). Moreover, the appreciative and democratic voices of professors are virtually embedded in the DEA models.     

An iterative method for the computation of the correlation matrix implied by a recursive path model

Quality & Quantity - In Path Analysis, especially in social sciences studies, many researchers usually assume that errors in the model are uncorrelated with all exogenous variables as well as...     

Differences Between Classical and Bayesian Estimates for Mixed Logit Models: A Replication Study

The mixed logit model is widely used in applied econometrics. Researchers typically rely on the free choice between the classical and Bayesian estimation approach. However, empirical evidence of the similarity of their parameter estimates is sparse. The presumed similarity is mainly based on one empirical study that analyzes a single dataset (Huber J, Train KE. 2001. On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Marketing Letters 12 (3): 259–269). Our replication study offers a generalization of their results by comparing classical and Bayesian parameter estimates from six additional datasets and specifically for panel versus cross‐sectional data. In general, our results suggest that the two methods provide similar results, with less similarity for cross‐sectional data than for panel data. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.