Partial-model testing as a validation tool for system dynamics (1983)
Abstract
System dynamicists have long emphasized the use of multiple data sources and multiple methods to estimate parameters and test models. Ideally, one should estimate parameters using data " below the level of aggregation of the model" . For example, in a model of capital investment, one could estimate the length and order of the construction delay directly from data on the construction times for a large sample of relevant projects. Often, however, the needed data are not available. At the other end of the spectrum one can use " whole model estimation" in which the parameters are found by fitting the behavior of the full model to the available aggregate time series data. Whole model estimation, however, often suffers from identification problems. In this 1983 paper Jack Homer describes partial model testing, in which parameters are estimated within a subset of model structure rather than by calibration of the entire model. Homer illustrates with an example from his research on the adoption of new medical innovations, specifically, the cardiac pacemaker. He illustrates the partial model testing process with an important formulation representing how the clinical and research communities carry out and report follow‐up data on the safety and efficacy of a medical innovation as it evolves. The paper also illustrates the necessity of careful empirical work to collect new data. Debates over methods to estimate parameters are sterile without the data to implement them. In the context of medical innovation, it would have been plausible to assume that follow‐up data evaluating pacemaker efficacy would grow smoothly over time as use expanded, though perhaps with a lag. Not content with such easy assumptions, however, Homer examined every article on pacing published in every issue of the relevant cardiology journals, from the creation of the pacemaker through the (then) present. The work, done years before the advent of the Internet and online databases, was painstaking and time consuming—the journals had to be searched and articles coded by hand. The payoff was a unique dataset documenting the actual dynamics of evaluative reporting. Rather than smooth growth, the data showed a pronounced oscillation in the publication of evaluative studies, even though other data, which Homer also assembled from original sources, showed smooth growth in adoption, clinical indications and pacemaker use. Homer's model generates the same oscillation endogenously, and the partial model tests provide robust estimates of the parameters governing the institutional processes (such as research and publication delays) and behavioral decision rules (such as the decision by researchers and clinicians to initiate new follow‐up studies) that determine the existence, period, and amplitude of the cycle. The structure identified through this process was not only important to accurately model the evolution of the pacemaker, but has important policy implications still relevant today. All modelers should follow Homer's example and put in the hard work to generate, from primary sources, the data needed to estimate the important parameters and relationships in our models. John Sterman Homer J. 1983. Partial‐model testing as a validation tool for system dynamics. In Proceedings of the 1983 International System Dynamics Conference . System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill, MA; 919–932. Abstract This paper discusses an approach to model refinement that involves testing the behavior of individual pieces of a model in response to empirical input data for comparison with empirical output data. Partial‐model tests should be used for selecting formulations or estimating parameters only when appropriate case‐specific or logical information is not available for this purpose. The smaller the model components used for partial‐model testing, the more likely it is that the model will prove useful for anticipating events outside historical experience and the less likely it is that observed behavior will be incorrectly attributed to certain relationships or parameters. Thus, from the standpoint of structural validity, partial‐model testing is an improvement over whole‐model testing for the purpose of structural adjustment. The paper presents a detailed example of partial‐model testing in the context of a generic model of the evolving use of a new medical technology. Specifically, the technique is used for adjusting and validating a model subsystem that can explain why the reporting of clinical information on cardiac pacemakers has been marked by regular oscillations over time. Copyright © 2012 System Dynamics Society.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Process noise could propagate through the system's dynamics and lead to behavior patterns not due to the structure captured in the model.
“Specifically, process noise could propagate through the system’s dynamics and lead to behavior patterns not due to the structure captured in the model.”
From Modeling the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis: A review and extension (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
Estimating feedback systems that include process noise requires special care.
“In addition, estimating feedback systems that include process noise, random processes outside of model boundary that impact model behavior significantly, requires special care (38).”
From Modeling the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis: A review and extension (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
Partial prediction method remedies this challenge by cutting the feedback loops in the model and estimating the model pieces separately.
“Partial prediction method remedies this challenge by cutting the feedback loops in the model and estimating the model pieces separately.”
From Modeling the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis: A review and extension (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
When feasible, partial prediction stops the propagation of process noise and provides more accurate parameter estimates.
“When feasible, this method stops the propagation of the process noise and thus provides more accurate parameter estimates.”
From Modeling the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis: A review and extension (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
Partial model calibration, as opposed to calibrating the whole model in one step, shows which part of the model works better and gives more reliable estimates.
“Moreover, partial model calibration, as opposed to calibrating the whole model in one step, shows which part of the model works better and gives more reliable estimates (38).”
From Modeling the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis: A review and extension (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
Cites
Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health and Medical Practices
Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B. (1977) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197703312961304 · Cited by 2,133 · see citing works
Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models
Oliva, R. (2003) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00622-7 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Elements of the System Dynamics Method
Lane, D. (1997) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600456 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
The Dissemination of New Medical Information
Stross, J. K. (1979) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1979.03290500030017 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Evaluation of Medical Practices
Fineberg, H. V., & Hiatt, H. H. (1979) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197911153012004 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
A diffusion model with application to evolving medical technologies
Homer, J. B. (1987) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/0040-1625(87)90011-4 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Internists Learned About Cimetidine
Manning, P. R., & DENSON, T. A. (1980) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-92-5-690 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Diagnosing surprise model behavior: A tool for evolving behavioral and policy insights (1981)
Mass, N. J., & Sterman, J. D. (1991) · System Dynamics Review · doi:10.1002/sdr.4260070106 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Permanent pacing of the heart: 1952 to 1976
Parsonnet, V., & Manhardt, M. (1977) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9149(77)80199-9 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
A dynamic model for analyzing the emergence of new medical technologies
Homer, J. B. (1983) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationDECISION‐MAKING IN PLANNING LARGE‐SCALE COMPARATIVE STUDIES
Levy, R. I., & Sondik, E. J. (1978) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1978.tb25628.x · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modeling the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis: A review and extension
Hosseinichimeh, N., Rahmandad, H., & Wittenborn, A. K. (2015) · Mathematical Biosciences · doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2015.08.004 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“To address this challenge we investigated the extent to which each model replicated the data by using the partial prediction method (38).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
- Authors
- Homer, J. B.
- Corresponding author
- Homer, Jack B.
- ORCID
- Homer, Jack B.
- Venue
- System Dynamics Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 281-294
- ISSN
- 0883-7066 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1727
- OpenAlex
- W1901399211
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- System Dynamics Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
- Keywords
- model validation, system dynamics, parameter estimation, system identification, cardiac pacemaker, follow-up study, time to publication, data collection, institutional processes, clinical decision rules, policy implications, model structure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review