Watts M
Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Demography. 1998 Nov;35(4):505-8.
In their paper in this issue, Grusky and Charles (1998) make a number of dubious claims about the measurement and interpretation of sex segregation. First, they incorrectly claim that only log-odds measures yield margin-free measures of segregation. Second, the estimation and testing of a limited class of log-linear models does not provide an independent test of the appropriateness of a log-odds ratio index to measure segregation. Their estimation in forms them of the statistically justifiable degree of occupational disaggregation, not whether a log-odds ratio is superior to, say, a linear index in the measurement of segregation. Finally, their index A is beset with problems of interpretation, not withstanding their arguments, and their additional measures, AW and AB, suffer similar problems. Grusky and Charles are, however, correct in arguing that measurement procedures should be margin-free. Further, I concur with the view that the adoption of a single annual summary measure of segregation cannot be justified, because it is premised on the assumption that individual occupations, or groups of occupations, exhibit similar trends in sex segregation.
在本期发表的论文中，格鲁斯基和查尔斯（1998年）就性别隔离的衡量与解读提出了一些可疑的主张。首先，他们错误地声称只有对数优势度量才能得出无边缘效应的隔离度量。其次，对有限类别的对数线性模型进行估计和检验，并不能为使用对数优势比指数来衡量隔离的适当性提供独立检验。他们的估计告诉他们职业分类在统计上合理的程度，而不是在衡量隔离时对数优势比是否优于比如说线性指数。最后，他们的指数A存在解释问题，尽管他们有相关论证，而且他们的额外度量AW和AB也存在类似问题。然而，格鲁斯基和查尔斯认为测量程序应无边缘效应这一点是正确的。此外，我赞同这样的观点，即采用单一的年度隔离汇总度量是不合理的，因为这是以个体职业或职业群体在性别隔离方面呈现相似趋势这一假设为前提的。
