Cited by 90Complex Systems and Decision MakingInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingControl Systems and Identification

Partial-model testing as a validation tool for system dynamics (1983)

Homer, Jack B.·2012·System Dynamics Review

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

Crossref · 10.1002/sdr.1478

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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).”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Homer, J. B.
Corresponding author
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