2003
DOI: 10.4091/iken1991.13.1_83
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Parametric and Non-Parametric Distance Functions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These studies used cross-sectional data from Japanese public hospitals and adopted largely traditional DEA approaches. Average efficiency scores ranged from 0.8869 to 0.9456 in terms of revenue efficiency [ 3 , 4 ]; for technical efficiency, they ranged from 0.8585 to 0.90008 [ 5 , 6 ].…”
Section: Methods and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies used cross-sectional data from Japanese public hospitals and adopted largely traditional DEA approaches. Average efficiency scores ranged from 0.8869 to 0.9456 in terms of revenue efficiency [ 3 , 4 ]; for technical efficiency, they ranged from 0.8585 to 0.90008 [ 5 , 6 ].…”
Section: Methods and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The disadvantages of SFA are strict assumptions about the form of the production function and the distributions of errors, and the inability to explicitly introduce multi‐output functions. Consequently, DEA and SFA may be regarded as alternative or complementary methods for estimating efficiency (Kooreman, ; Jacobs, ; Nakayama, ).…”
Section: Efficiency Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because a considerable amount of DEA and SFA studies (e.g. Aoki and Urushi, ; Nam and Gunji, ; Yamada et al ., ; Fujii, ; Nakayama, ; Kawaguchi, ) use inpatients and outpatients as another possible combination of hospital outputs, we consider inpatients and outpatients as an alternative set of outputs . For each combination of inputs and outputs, we measure technical efficiency, distance function score and cost efficiency score according to the methodology described in Subsections , and , respectively.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation