[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the Chinese handwriting performance of typical children and children with dyslexia, and to examine whether speed and accuracy of handwriting could reliably discriminate these two groups of children. One hundred and thirty-seven children with dyslexia and 756 typical children were recruited from main stream primary schools for the study. They were requested to copy 90 Chinese characters using the Chinese Handwriting Assessment Tool (CHAT) jointly developed by a project team from two universities in Hong Kong. The process of handwriting was recorded and the stroke errors in writing were analyzed using the CHAT system. Results indicated that children with dyslexia wrote significantly slower, with greater average character size and variation in size (p<.05) than the typical children of same age group. They also wrote with significantly lower accuracy (p<.05). Commonly observed writing errors among the Dyslexic group were missing strokes and concatenated strokes. From the discriminant analysis, it was found that writing speed and accuracy were satisfactory discriminators that could discriminate students into the two groups, with reasonably good classification accuracy of over 70% for every grade. The results were discussed with theoretical implications in relation to fine motor skills, kinesthetic abilities, visual perceptual skills, and the demand of written tasks in school.
Research in developmental disabilities 01/2011; 32(5):1745-56. · 4.41 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Most current modeling approaches identify very small gains from trade reform. In this chapter, we examine recent developments in the literature to assess whether standard modeling approaches are mis-specifying, understating, or overstating the gains from trade reform. Key areas where the impacts of trade barrier reduction appear to be understated include the measurement of barriers; the aggregation of these barriers; process productivity gains, particularly those resulting from reallocation of resources between firms; product quality improvements and expansion of product variety; factor supply; and investment of gains from trade.
Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. 09/2010; 7:379-434.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to characterize that the marginal social cost of public funds and to estimate the response of labor supply to these publicly provided goods, and simulate the marginal social cost of cash-cum-in-kind transfers (MSCKT) for Brazil. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a theoretical model based on Wildasin to characterize the marginal social cost of public funds. Next it estimates using instrumental variables approach the variables necessary to calibrate our theoretical model. Findings – The marginal social cost of public funds depends on the relation between labor supply and the cash-cum-in-kind transfers. Last, the simulations suggest that MSCKT can increase up to 12.4 percent if compared with cases in which is assumed ordinary independence between labor and the bundle of goods provided by the public sector. Research limitations/implications – Further panel data experiments based on municipal public finance data should be conducted in order to circumvent the agents' heterogeneity problem inherent in cross section analysis – and individuals' labor supply response could be more sensitive at this data level. Finally, such cost-benefit analysis makes more sense when a specific project is considered and therefore its effects on the taxed good can be clearly estimated leading to a more reliable estimative of the marginal social cost of funding that project. Social implications – Governments should take the actual social cost of public policies into consideration before undertaking any new project. Originality/value – The paper is useful to characterize the marginal social cost of public funds, estimate the necessary parameters and, last, to calibrate its correspondent using Brazilian data.
Journal of Economic Studies 09/2011; 38(5):577-603.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.