Froggatt P
Br J Ind Med. 1970 Oct;27(4):297-312.
297-312. The abilities of five hypotheses (chance', proneness', and three of true contagion' - as defined in the text) to explain the distributions of one-day and two-day absences among groups of male and female industrial personnel and clerks in government service are examined by curve-fitting and correlation methods. The five hypotheses generate (in order) the Poisson, negative binomial, Neyman type A, Short, and Hermite (two-parameter form) distributions which are fitted to the data using maximum-likelihood estimates. The conclusion is drawn that proneness', i.e., a stable liability', compounded from several though unquantifiable factors, and constant for each individual over the period of the study, is markedly successful in explaining the data. It is emphasized that some of the other hypotheses under test cannot be unequivocably rejected; and there is in theory an infinite number, still unformulated or untested, which may be acceptable or even fit the data better. Correlation coefficients for the numbers of one-day (and two-day) absences taken by the same individuals in two equal non-overlapping periods of time are of the order 0·5 to 0·7 (0·3 to 0·5 for two-day absences) and the corresponding regressions fulfil linear requirements. These correlations are higher than any between personal characteristics' and their overt consequence in contingent fields of human enquiry. For one-day absences the predictive power for the future from the past record could in some circumstances justify executive action. When freely available, overtime was greatest among junior married men and least among junior married women. The validity of the inference of `proneness' and the implications of its acceptance are fully discussed. While interpretation is not unequivocal, one-day absences seemingly have many causes; two-day absences are also heterogeneous but in some ways resemble longer certified absence. It is concluded that short-term absence, particularly of one day, may be largely the overt expression of a traditional desire, even need, to work discontinuously which, though it can be mitigated by often identifiable general and individual circumstances, is consistently more marked in some individuals than in others.
297 - 312。通过曲线拟合和相关方法，检验了五个假设（“偶然性”、“易发性”以及文中定义的三种“真正传染性”假设）对政府部门男性和女性产业人员及职员群体中单日和两日缺勤分布情况的解释能力。这五个假设依次产生泊松分布、负二项分布、奈曼A型分布、肖特分布和埃尔米特分布（双参数形式），并使用最大似然估计将这些分布拟合到数据中。得出的结论是，“易发性”，即一种由几个虽不可量化但稳定的因素构成的、在研究期间对每个个体而言保持不变的“倾向”，在解释数据方面非常成功。需要强调的是，其他一些正在测试的假设不能被明确拒绝；并且理论上还有无数个尚未形成或未测试的假设，它们可能是可接受的，甚至可能更符合数据。同一批个体在两个相等且不重叠时间段内的单日（和两日）缺勤次数的相关系数约为0.5至0.7（两日缺勤的相关系数为0.3至0.5），相应的回归满足线性要求。这些相关性高于人类调查相关领域中“个人特征”与其明显后果之间的任何相关性。对于单日缺勤情况，在某些情况下，根据过去记录对未来的预测能力可为行政行动提供依据。当有加班机会时，初级已婚男性的加班时间最长，初级已婚女性的加班时间最短。文中充分讨论了“易发性”推断的有效性及其被接受所带来的影响。虽然解释并不明确，但单日缺勤似乎有多种原因；两日缺勤情况也各不相同，但在某些方面类似于更长时间的经证明缺勤。得出的结论是，短期缺勤，尤其是一日缺勤，可能在很大程度上是传统的间断工作愿望甚至需求的外在表现，尽管这种愿望可以通过通常可识别的一般和个体情况得到缓解，但在某些个体中始终比其他个体更为明显。
