PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Bamber

Publications and source records attributed to D Bamber.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

How to Assess a Model's Testability and Identifiability.

Formal definitions are given of the following intuitive concepts: (a) A model is quantitatively testable if its predictions are highly precise and narrow. (b) A model is identifiable if the values of its parameters can be ascertained from empirical observations. (c) A model is redundant if the values of some parameters can be deduced from others or if the values of some observables can be deduced from others. Various rules of thumb for nonredundant models are examined. The Counting Rule states that a model is quantitatively testable if and only if it has fewer parameters than observables. This rule can be safely applied only to identifiable models. If a model is unidentifiable, one must apply a generalization of the Counting Rule known as the Jacobian Rule. This rule states that a model is quantitatively testable if and only if the maximum rank (i.e., the number of linearly independent columns) of its Jacobian matrix (i.e., the matrix of partial derivatives of the function that maps parameter values to the predicted values of observables) is smaller than the number of observables. The Identifiability Rule states that a model is identifiable if and only if the maximum rank of its Jacobian matrix equals the number of parameters. The conclusions provided by these rules are only presumptive. To reach definitive conclusions, additional analyses must be performed. To illustrate the foregoing, the quantitative testability and identifiability of linear models and of discrete-state models are analyzed. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2000

The pathological status of exercise dependence.

OBJECTIVES: This study was concerned with the concept of exercise dependence. Levels of psychological morbidity, personality profiles, and exercise beliefs were compared among subjects screened for exercise dependence and eating disorders. METHOD: Adult female exercisers were allocated on the basis of questionnaire screening to one of the following groups: primary exercise dependence (n = 43); secondary exercise dependence, where there was the coincidence of exercise dependence and an eating disorder (n = 27); eating disorder (n =14); control, where there was no evidence of either exercise dependence or eating disorder (n = 110). Questionnaire assessment was undertaken of psychological morbidity, self esteem, weight and body shape dissatisfaction, personality, and exercise beliefs. RESULTS: Aside from a higher incidence of reported menstrual abnormalities, the primary exercise dependence group was largely indistinguishable from the controls. In stark contrast, the secondary exercise dependence group reported higher levels of psychological morbidity, neuroticism, dispositional addictiveness, and impulsiveness, lower self esteem, greater concern with body shape and weight, as well as with the social, psychological, and aesthetic costs of not exercising than the controls, but differed little from the eating disorder group. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of an eating disorder, women identified as being exercise dependent do not exhibit the sorts of personality characteristics and levels of psychological distress that warrant the construction of primary exercise dependence as a widespread pathology.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

"It's exercise or nothing": a qualitative analysis of exercise dependence.

OBJECTIVES: To explore, using qualitative methods, the concept of exercise dependence. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with subjects screened for exercise dependence and eating disorders. METHODS: Female exercisers, four in each case, were allocated a priori to four groups: primary exercise dependent; secondary exercise dependent, where there was a coincidence of exercise dependence and an eating disorder; eating disordered; control, where there was no evidence of either exercise dependence or eating disorder. They were asked about their exercise and eating attitudes and behaviour, as well as about any history of psychological distress. Their narratives were taped, transcribed, and analysed from a social constructionist perspective using QSR NUD*IST. RESULTS: Participants classified as primary exercise dependent either showed no evidence of exercise dependent attitudes and behaviour or, if they exhibited features of exercise dependence, displayed symptoms of an eating disorder. Only the latter reported a history of psychological distress, similar to that exhibited by women classified as secondary exercise dependent or eating disordered. For secondary exercise dependent and eating disordered women, as well as for controls, the narratives largely confirmed the a priori classification. CONCLUSIONS: Where exercise dependence was manifest, it was always in the context of an eating disorder, and it was this comorbidity, in addition to eating disorders per se, that was associated with psychological distress. As such, these qualitative data support the concept of secondary, but not primary, exercise dependence.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Learning-forgetting independence, unidimensional memory models, and feature models: comment on Bogartz (1990).

In his recent articles, Bogartz offered a definition of what it means for forgetting rate to be independent of degree of original learning. He showed that, given this definition, independence is confirmed by extant data. Bogartz also criticized Loftus's (1985b) proposed method for testing independence. In this commentary, we counter Bogartz's criticisms and then offer two observations. First, we show that Loftus's horizontal-parallelism test distinguishes between two interesting class of memory models: unidimensional models wherein the memory system's state can be specified by a single number and multidimensional models wherein at least two numbers are required to specify the memory system's state. Independence by Loftus's definition is implied by a unidimensional model. Bogartz's definition, in contrast, is consistent with either model. Second, to better understand the constraints on memory mechanisms dictated by the mathematics of the models under consideration, we develop a simple but general feature model of learning and forgetting. We demonstrate what constraints must be placed on this model to make learning and forgetting rate independent by Loftus's and by Bogartz's definitions.

Humans↗