DOCSLIB.ORG

Item Grouping and Item Randomization in Personality Measurement ⇑ Kraig L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Item Grouping and Item Randomization in Personality Measurement ⇑ Kraig L Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 317–321 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Item grouping and item randomization in personality measurement ⇑ Kraig L. Schell a, , Frederick L. Oswald b a Department of Psychology, Angelo State University, United States b Department of Psychology, Rice University, United States article info abstract Article history: This paper describes a study examining the impact of item order in personality measurement on reliabil- Received 22 October 2012 ity, measurement equivalence and scale-level correlations. A large sample of university students com- Received in revised form 6 March 2013 pleted one of three forms of the International Personality Item Pool version of the Big Five personality Accepted 12 March 2013 inventory: items sorted at random, items sorted by factor, and items cycled through factors. Results Available online 4 April 2013 showed that the underlying measurement model and the internal consistency of the IPIP-Big Five scale was unaffected by differences in item order. Also, most of the scale-level correlations among factors were Keywords: not significantly different across forms. Implications for the administration of tests and interpretation of Personality test scores are discussed, and future research directions are offered. Measurement Psychometrics Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Validity Reliability Item order 1. Introduction and item order was targeted as a possible source of leniency bias in those ratings. Although the evidence reported suggested a de- The history of item-order research dates back over half a cen- crease in leniency bias for the ungrouped instruments, the findings tury. One of the earliest studies on the effects of item order using were modest at best, again casting doubt on the actual impact of a sample of unionized workers used an attitude instrument with item sequencing. 12 subscales (Kirchner & Uphoff, 1955). The analysis reported indi- Other studies provide evidence in support of item order effects. cated that 11 of those 12 scale means did not differ significantly Across large samples of public school supervisors and administra- between tests with items that were sequenced in two different tors, Schurr and Henriksen (1983) reported significant effects of ways: items grouped by factor vs. items that were randomized. item order on the psychometric properties of a 61-item instrument The sample sizes were small (maximum N per group was 21), that was presented in three forms: ungrouped, grouped but not la- and of course, simple mean comparisons may have missed impor- beled by factor, and grouped and labeled by factor. However, the tant relationships in these data, and mean differences do not speak instrument in question was an item checklist containing skills to the reliability or equivalence of each measure’s internal struc- and activities that could serve as training topics in the organization ture. But nevertheless, this work represents an early contribution sampled, and so the items under any given ‘‘factor’’ were quite di- to the historical conclusion that item order is not a critical issue verse. These effects may not generalize to measures of latent psy- in the administration of self-report instruments. chological constructs such as personality traits. Another study Subsequent studies on the item-order effect (or a lack of one) do conducted soon thereafter used self-report attitude measures, such not seem to be found in the research literature much later, in the as job and family satisfaction, and the authors reported that inter- 1980’s. The first of these studies (Schriesheim, 1981) tested a small nal consistency statistics varied significantly between grouped and sample of department store employees on two recognized leader- labeled, grouped and unlabeled, and ungrouped forms of adminis- ship questionnaires, examining items that were grouped by con- tration (Solomon & Kopelman, 1984). Data showed that the struct vs. randomized (N = 40 in each of two groups, for each of grouped and unlabeled form was associated with the highest Cron- two studies). These questionnaires were both designed to rate bach’s alpha, whereas the randomized form was associated with the employees’ immediate supervisors on leadership behaviors, the lowest alpha statistic. These differences were also statistically reliable. These two studies renewed interest in the issue of item or- der as a potential confound in psychological measurement. Finally, ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Box 10907 ASU Station, Angelo State Univer- two other studies (Schriesheim, Kopelman, & Solomon, 1989; Sch- sity, San Angelo, TX 76909, United States. Tel.: +1 325 486 6128; fax: +1 325 942 riesheim, Solomon, & Kopelman, 1989) examined item order ef- 2290. fects in attitude measures from multiple perspectives: internal E-mail address: [email protected] (K.L. Schell). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.008 318 K.L. Schell, F.L. Oswald / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 317–321 consistency, convergent/discriminant validity, and confirmatory assortment being the least), the psychometric properties of the factor structures. In general, their data showed that the effect of instrument should improve if the structural features of the test item order was likely to be stronger in measures that were not are an important part of the measurement model underlying it. as strong psychometrically compared to those that were. This Thus, we expected that obvious non-random sequencing (items might make conceptual sense, such that when the construct is grouped by factor) should increase the internal consistency of not as salient or strong to the test-taker, factors such as unique the instrument, since item grouping should encourage an under- content specific to items and item ordering have greater influences standing of their shared properties, an idea in line with prior stud- on test responses. Both studies also suggested that the grouped- ies (Melnick, 1993; Smith, 1983). Based on Schriesheim, Kopelman, item format was superior to random-item formats in most cases, et al. (1989), we also hypothesized that confirmatory factor analy- although the authors do admit that the practical significance of sis would reveal unequal factor loadings (metric non-invariance) item order on reliability is likely to be rather low (Schriesheim, between comparable items at the subscale level across the three Kopelman, et al., 1989; Schriesheim, Solomon, et al., 1989) and forms. Third, we expected that observed scale-level correlations we admit that it is a relatively open question whether results in should be significantly different (i.e., show heterogeneity) across this research domain are replicable versus being more strongly tied form type. Specifically, non-random item groupings should lead to samples, measures and settings. to lower correlations between factors because the superficial dif- In line with this sentiment, it should be noted that not everyone ferences between the items should be perceived more readily by studying item order effects at that time was drawing the same con- respondents. To our knowledge, no study has directly compared clusions. In two papers, Knowles and colleagues argued that item scale-level correlations between groups exposed to the same order was a significant influence on the item-total correlations instrument but with different item sequencings. and alpha reliability in a personality instrument (Knowles, 1988; Knowles & Byers, 1996). Steinberg (1994) also suggested that 2. Method item-trait correlations could be systematically affected by the grouping of items by each underlying factor that the measure is in- 2.1. Participants tended to reflect. Finally, more recent studies have been conducted as well, using Three hundred ninety-seven participants (129 men, 268 wo- newer analysis techniques. For example, Franke (1997) showed men) volunteered to complete the study. The average age for the evidence that grouping the items by their underlying factor nega- sample was 21.4 years (SD = 6.3). These were all students from a tively affected the internal consistency and changed mean values mid-sized university in the American southwest who completed for subscales in a multi-factor instrument. She suggests that this the study in exchange for course credits. occurs because the test had been validated using a particular item sequence, and as such, that fact had become part of the psychomet- 2.2. Materials ric properties of the instrument itself. This is an interesting general point, that validation evidence of a measure shown over time may The 50-item International Personality Item Pool version of the be in part a function of an item order established for the measure. Big Five personality instrument was chosen for this study (http:// A more recent study (Frantom, Green, & Lam, 2002) seemed to ipip.ori.org). As portrayed on the IPIP website, the IPIP instrument indirectly support this idea on a 40-item opinion survey, arguing has been consistently shown to be a valid and reliable measure of that item grouping by factor using a Rasch measurement model ap- the Big Five traits. None of the form types described below reflect proach significantly increased person separation, making the items the ‘‘standard’’ item sequencing for this instrument because one reflecting a particular factor more ‘‘sample-free.’’ does not exist
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Variance and Analysis of Variance and Design of Experiments of Experiments-I
    Analysis of Variance and Design of Experimentseriments--II MODULE ––IVIV LECTURE - 19 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS AND THEIR ANALYSIS Dr. Shalabh Department of Mathematics and Statistics Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur 2 Design of experiment means how to design an experiment in the sense that how the observations or measurements should be obtained to answer a qqyuery inavalid, efficient and economical way. The desigggning of experiment and the analysis of obtained data are inseparable. If the experiment is designed properly keeping in mind the question, then the data generated is valid and proper analysis of data provides the valid statistical inferences. If the experiment is not well designed, the validity of the statistical inferences is questionable and may be invalid. It is important to understand first the basic terminologies used in the experimental design. Experimental unit For conducting an experiment, the experimental material is divided into smaller parts and each part is referred to as experimental unit. The experimental unit is randomly assigned to a treatment. The phrase “randomly assigned” is very important in this definition. Experiment A way of getting an answer to a question which the experimenter wants to know. Treatment Different objects or procedures which are to be compared in an experiment are called treatments. Sampling unit The object that is measured in an experiment is called the sampling unit. This may be different from the experimental unit. 3 Factor A factor is a variable defining a categorization. A factor can be fixed or random in nature. • A factor is termed as fixed factor if all the levels of interest are included in the experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Randomize?
    TRANSLATING RESEARCH INTO ACTION How to Randomize? Roland Rathelot J-PAL Course Overview 1. What is Evaluation? 2. Outcomes, Impact, and Indicators 3. Why Randomize and Common Critiques 4. How to Randomize 5. Sampling and Sample Size 6. Threats and Analysis 7. Project from Start to Finish 8. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Scaling Up Lecture Overview • Unit and method of randomization • Real-world constraints • Revisiting unit and method • Variations on simple treatment-control Lecture Overview • Unit and method of randomization • Real-world constraints • Revisiting unit and method • Variations on simple treatment-control Unit of Randomization: Options 1. Randomizing at the individual level 2. Randomizing at the group level “Cluster Randomized Trial” • Which level to randomize? Unit of Randomization: Considerations • What unit does the program target for treatment? • What is the unit of analysis? Unit of Randomization: Individual? Unit of Randomization: Individual? Unit of Randomization: Clusters? Unit of Randomization: Class? Unit of Randomization: Class? Unit of Randomization: School? Unit of Randomization: School? How to Choose the Level • Nature of the Treatment – How is the intervention administered? – What is the catchment area of each “unit of intervention” – How wide is the potential impact? • Aggregation level of available data • Power requirements • Generally, best to randomize at the level at which the treatment is administered. Suppose an intervention targets health outcomes of children through info on hand-washing. What is the appropriate level of randomization? A. Child level 30% B. Household level 23% C. Classroom level D. School level 17% E. Village level 13% 10% F. Don’t know 7% A. B. C. D.
    [Show full text]
  • Randomized Experimentsexperiments Randomized Trials
    Impact Evaluation RandomizedRandomized ExperimentsExperiments Randomized Trials How do researchers learn about counterfactual states of the world in practice? In many fields, and especially in medical research, evidence about counterfactuals is generated by randomized trials. In principle, randomized trials ensure that outcomes in the control group really do capture the counterfactual for a treatment group. 2 Randomization To answer causal questions, statisticians recommend a formal two-stage statistical model. In the first stage, a random sample of participants is selected from a defined population. In the second stage, this sample of participants is randomly assigned to treatment and comparison (control) conditions. 3 Population Randomization Sample Randomization Treatment Group Control Group 4 External & Internal Validity The purpose of the first-stage is to ensure that the results in the sample will represent the results in the population within a defined level of sampling error (external validity). The purpose of the second-stage is to ensure that the observed effect on the dependent variable is due to some aspect of the treatment rather than other confounding factors (internal validity). 5 Population Non-target group Target group Randomization Treatment group Comparison group 6 Two-Stage Randomized Trials In large samples, two-stage randomized trials ensure that: [Y1 | D =1]= [Y1 | D = 0] and [Y0 | D =1]= [Y0 | D = 0] • Thus, the estimator ˆ ˆ ˆ δ = [Y1 | D =1]-[Y0 | D = 0] • Consistently estimates ATE 7 One-Stage Randomized Trials Instead, if randomization takes place on a selected subpopulation –e.g., list of volunteers-, it only ensures: [Y0 | D =1] = [Y0 | D = 0] • And hence, the estimator ˆ ˆ ˆ δ = [Y1 | D =1]-[Y0 | D = 0] • Only estimates TOT Consistently 8 Randomized Trials Furthermore, even in idealized randomized designs, 1.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Do Random Allocation (Randomization) Jeehyoung Kim, MD, Wonshik Shin, MD
    Special Report Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2014;6:103-109 • http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.1.103 How to Do Random Allocation (Randomization) Jeehyoung Kim, MD, Wonshik Shin, MD Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Sacred Heart General Hospital, Seoul, Korea Purpose: To explain the concept and procedure of random allocation as used in a randomized controlled study. Methods: We explain the general concept of random allocation and demonstrate how to perform the procedure easily and how to report it in a paper. Keywords: Random allocation, Simple randomization, Block randomization, Stratified randomization Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are known as the best On the other hand, many researchers are still un- method to prove causality in spite of various limitations. familiar with how to do randomization, and it has been Random allocation is a technique that chooses individuals shown that there are problems in many studies with the for treatment groups and control groups entirely by chance accurate performance of the randomization and that some with no regard to the will of researchers or patients’ con- studies are reporting incorrect results. So, we will intro- dition and preference. This allows researchers to control duce the recommended way of using statistical methods all known and unknown factors that may affect results in for a randomized controlled study and show how to report treatment groups and control groups. the results properly. Allocation concealment is a technique used to pre- vent selection bias by concealing the allocation sequence CATEGORIES OF RANDOMIZATION from those assigning participants to intervention groups, until the moment of assignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Bias in Rcts: Confounders, Selection Bias and Allocation Concealment
    Vol. 10, No. 3, 2005 Middle East Fertility Society Journal © Copyright Middle East Fertility Society EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE CORNER Bias in RCTs: confounders, selection bias and allocation concealment Abdelhamid Attia, M.D. Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology and secretary general of the center of evidence-Based Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt The double blind randomized controlled trial that may distort a RCT results and how to avoid (RCT) is considered the gold-standard in clinical them is mandatory for researchers who seek research. Evidence for the effectiveness of conducting proper research of high relevance and therapeutic interventions should rely on well validity. conducted RCTs. The importance of RCTs for clinical practice can be illustrated by its impact on What is bias? the shift of practice in hormone replacement therapy (HRT). For decades HRT was considered Bias is the lack of neutrality or prejudice. It can the standard care for all postmenopausal, be simply defined as "the deviation from the truth". symptomatic and asymptomatic women. Evidence In scientific terms it is "any factor or process that for the effectiveness of HRT relied always on tends to deviate the results or conclusions of a trial observational studies mostly cohort studies. But a systematically away from the truth2". Such single RCT that was published in 2002 (The women's deviation leads, usually, to over-estimating the health initiative trial (1) has changed clinical practice effects of interventions making them look better all over the world from the liberal use of HRT to the than they actually are. conservative use in selected symptomatic cases and Bias can occur and affect any part of a study for the shortest period of time.
    [Show full text]
  • Randomization Lists
    PASS Sample Size Software NCSS.com Chapter 880 Randomization Lists Introduction This module is used to create a randomization list for assigning subjects to one of up to 25 treatment groups. The list can be stratified by up to 25 centers (strata) with an additional 2 stratification factors, each with up to 25 levels. Seven randomization algorithms are available. Five of the algorithms (Block Randomization, Efron’s biased coin randomization, Smith’s randomization, Wei’s urn randomization, and random sorting using maximum allowable % deviation) are designed to generate balanced random samples throughout the course of an experiment. The other two (complete randomization and random sorting) are less complex but have higher probabilities of imbalance. Technical details for each of these algorithms (except random sorting) as well as a discussion of randomization issues in general are given in Rosenberger and Lachin (2002), Pocock (1983), and Piantadosi (2005). Why Randomize? Random allocation has been an important part of scientific discovery since the time of R.A. Fisher. He and other scientists recognized the potential for bias in nonrandomized experiments that could compromise treatment comparisons. Randomization controls the influence of unknown factors, reducing potential bias in an experiment. Rosenberger and Lachin (2002) state on page 18 that “…the randomization of subjects between the treatment groups is the paramount statistical element that allows one to claim that a study is unbiased.” The elimination of bias, however, is not the only reason for randomization. Pocock (1983) states on page 50 that randomization is used “to provide a basis for the standard methods of statistical analysis such as significance tests.” Clearly, randomization is necessary in order to produce accurate and generalizable statistical conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 10: Causality with Measured Confounding
    Week 10: Causality with Measured Confounding Brandon Stewart1 Princeton November 28 and 30, 2016 1These slides are heavily influenced by Matt Blackwell, Jens Hainmueller, Erin Hartman, Kosuke Imai and Gary King. Stewart (Princeton) Week 10: Measured Confounding November 28 and 30, 2016 1 / 176 Where We've Been and Where We're Going... Last Week I regression diagnostics This Week I Monday: F experimental Ideal F identification with measured confounding I Wednesday: F regression estimation Next Week I identification with unmeasured confounding I instrumental variables Long Run I causality with measured confounding ! unmeasured confounding ! repeated data Questions? Stewart (Princeton) Week 10: Measured Confounding November 28 and 30, 2016 2 / 176 1 The Experimental Ideal 2 Assumption of No Unmeasured Confounding 3 Fun With Censorship 4 Regression Estimators 5 Agnostic Regression 6 Regression and Causality 7 Regression Under Heterogeneous Effects 8 Fun with Visualization, Replication and the NYT 9 Appendix Subclassification Identification under Random Assignment Estimation Under Random Assignment Blocking Stewart (Princeton) Week 10: Measured Confounding November 28 and 30, 2016 3 / 176 1 The Experimental Ideal 2 Assumption of No Unmeasured Confounding 3 Fun With Censorship 4 Regression Estimators 5 Agnostic Regression 6 Regression and Causality 7 Regression Under Heterogeneous Effects 8 Fun with Visualization, Replication and the NYT 9 Appendix Subclassification Identification under Random Assignment Estimation Under Random Assignment Blocking Stewart
    [Show full text]
  • Randomization
    Randomization Randomization in trials is the act of assigning treatment units (usually persons) to treatment via a random process. As noted in the essay on random, the expectation is that randomization will produce treatment groups having comparable entry and baseline characteristics. If one wants a "guarantee" of comparability, one has to resort to stratification or matching. Although the expectation is usually satisfied, there is no "guarantee" of comparability. Large differences in the treatment groups can occur by chance in the same way that one can have a fortuitous or disastrous run at the blackjack table. Hence, an aberrantly small p-value for a given baseline variable does not, by itself, provide evidence of a "randomization breakdown". The primary purpose of randomization is to avoid treatment-related selection bias. The notion of bias free assignment is at the heart of any comparative trial and chance via randomization represents the best available tool for achieving bias-free assignment. randomization n - 1. An act of assigning or ordering that is the result of a random process such as that represented by a sequence of numbers in a table of random numbers or a sequence of numbers produced by a random number generator, eg, the assignment of a patient to treatment using a random process. 2. The process of deriving an order or sequence of items, specimens, records, or the like using a random process. rt: haphazardization, quasirandomization Usage note:Donot use as a characterization except in settings where there is an explicit or implied mathematical basis for supporting the usage, as discussed in usage notes for random adj.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Randomization*
    An Introduction to Randomization* TAF – CEGA Impact Evaluation Workshop Day 1 * http://ocw.mit.edu (J-PAL Impact Evaluation Workshop materials) Outline Background What is randomized evaluation? Advantages and limitations of experiments Conclusions An example: The “Vote 2002” campaign Arceneaux, Gerber and Green (2006) Intervention: get-out-the-vote phone calls to increase voter turnout in Iowa and Michigan, 2002 midterm elections Treatment group = 60,000 individuals (35,000 actually reached by phone) Control group = >2,000,000 individuals Main outcome: turnout (did the individual vote?) Effect sizes using experimental v. non-experimental methods How to measure impact? What would have happened in the absence of the intervention program? { Since the counterfactual is not observable, key goal of all impact evaluation methods is to construct of “mimic” the counterfactual Constructing the counterfactual Counterfactual is often constructed by selecting a group not affected by the program Randomized: { Use random assignment of the program to create a control group which mimics the counterfactual. Non-randomized: { Argue that a certain excluded group mimics the counterfactual. Validity A tool to assess credibility of a study Internal validity { Relates to ability to draw causal inference, i.e. can we attribute our impact estimates to the program and not to something else External validity { Relates to ability to generalize to other settings of interest, i.e. can we generalize our impact estimates from this program to other populations,
    [Show full text]
  • Randomized Clinical Trials
    15 Randomized clinical trials One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small. And the ones your mother gives you, don’t do anything at all. Grace Slick, The Jefferson Airplane: White Rabbit, from Surrealistic Pillow, 1967 Learning objectives In this chapter you will learn: ● the unique features of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ● how to undertake critical interpretation of RCTs The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the ultimate paradigm of clinical research. Many consider the RCT to be the most important medical development of the twentieth century, as their results are used to dictate clinical practice. Although these trails are often put on a pedestal, it is important to realize that as with all experiments, there may be flaws in the design, implementation, and interpretation of these trials. The competent reader of the medical literature should be able to evaluate the results of a clinical trial in the context of the potential biases introduced into the research experiment, and determine if it contains any fatal flaws Introduction The clinical trial is a relatively recent development in medical research. Prior to the 1950s, most research was based upon case series or uncontrolled observations. James Lind, a surgeon in the British Navy, can claim credit for performing the first recorded clinical trial. In 1747, aboard the ship Salisbury, he took 12 sailors with scurvy and divided them into six groups of two each. He made sure they were similar in every way except for the treatment they received for scurvy. Dr. Lind found that the two sailors who were given oranges and lemons got better while the other ten did not.
    [Show full text]
  • Randomization Distributions
    Section 4.4 Creating Randomization Distributions Statistics: Unlocking the Power of Data Lock5 Randomization Distributions p-values can be calculated by randomization distributions: simulate samples, assuming H0 is true calculate the statistic of interest for each sample find the p-value as the proportion of simulated statistics as extreme as the observed statistic Today we’ll see ways to simulate randomization samples for a variety of situations Statistics: Unlocking the Power of Data Lock5 Cocaine Addiction • In a randomized experiment on treating cocaine addiction, 48 people were randomly assigned to take either Desipramine (a new drug), or Lithium (an existing drug), and then followed to see who relapsed • Question of interest: Is Desipramine better than Lithium at treating cocaine addiction? Statistics: Unlocking the Power of Data Lock5 Cocaine Addiction • What are the null and alternative hypotheses? • What are the possible conclusions? Statistics: Unlocking the Power of Data Lock5 Cocaine Addiction • What are the null and alternative hypotheses? pD, pL: proportion of cocaine addicts who relapse after taking Desipramine or Lithium, respectively ̂ H0: pD = pL H : p < p a D L • What are the possible conclusions? Reject H0; Desipramine is better than Lithium Do not reject H0: We cannot determine from these data whether Desipramine is better than Lithium Statistics: Unlocking the Power of Data Lock5 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 1.
    [Show full text]
  • De-Randomization Under a Uniform Assumption
    Randomness vs. Time: De-randomization under a uniform assumption Russell Impagliazzo∗ Avi Wigdersony Department of Computer Science Institute of Computer Science University of California Hebrew University San Diego, CA 91097-0114 Jerusalem, Israel 91904 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 1 Introduction, History, and Intuition We prove that if BPP = EXP, then every prob- lem in BPP can be solved6 deterministically in 1.1 Motivation subexponential time on almost every input ( The introduction of randomization into efficient on every samplable ensemble for infinitely many computation has been one of the most fertile and input sizes). This is the first derandomiza- useful ideas in computer science. In cryptogra- tion result for BP P based on uniform, non- phy and asynchronous computing, randomization cryptographic hardness assumptions. It implies makes possible tasks that are impossible to per- the following gap in the average-instance com- form deterministically. Even for function com- plexities of problems in BP P : either these com- putation, many examples are known in which plexities are always sub-exponential or they con- randomization allows considerable savings in re- tain arbitrarily large exponential functions. sources like space and time over deterministic al- We use a construction of a small \pseudo- gorithms, or even \only" simplifies them. random" set of strings from a \hard function" But to what extent is this seeming power of in EXP which is identical to that used in the randomness over determinism real? The most analogous non-uniform results of [21, 3]. How- famous concrete version of this question regards ever, previous proofs of correctness assume the the power of BP P , the class of problems solv- \hard function" is not in P=poly.
    [Show full text]