James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Institutional Corresp

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Subgroup Effects

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Feminization of Poverty

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Immunization Disparities

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Credit Score Illustration

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Mortality and Survival 2

Measures of Association

Educational Disparities

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Lending Disparities

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Lathern v. NationsBank

Holder/Perez Letter

Discipline Disparities

Disparate Treatment

Los Angeles SWPBS

Suburban Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

NEPC Colorado Study

Duncan/Ali Letter

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

The AT&T Consent Decree

Cross v. ASPI

Vignettes

Times Higher Issues

Gender Diff in DADT Term

Adjustment Issues

Percentage Points

Odds Ratios

Statistical Signif Vig

Journalists & Statistics

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Outline and Guide

Misconduct Summary

B1 Agent Cain Testimony

B1a Bev Wilsh Diversion

B2 Bk Entry re Cain Call

B3 John Mitchell Count

B3a Obscuring Msg Slips

B3b Missing Barksdale Int

B4 Park Towers

B5 Dean 1997 Motion

B6 Demery Testimony

B7 Sankin Receipts

B7a Sankin HBS App

B8 DOJ Complicity

B9 Doc Manager Complaints

B9a Fabricated Gov Exh 25

B11a DC Bar Complaint

Letters (Misconduct)

Links Page

Misconduct Profiles

Arlin M. Adams

Jo Ann Harris

Bruce C. Swartz

Swartz Addendum 2

Swartz Addendum 3

Swartz Addendum 4

Swartz Addendum 7

Robert E. O'Neill

O'Neill Addendum 7

Paula A. Sweeney

Robert J. Meyer

Lantos Hearings

Password Protected

OIC Doc Manager Material

DC Bar Materials

Temp Confidential

DV Issues

Document Storage

Pre 1989

1989 - present

Presentations

Prosec Misc Docs

Prosec Misc Docs II

Profile PDFs

Misc Letters July 2008 on

Large Prosec Misc Docs

HUD Documents

Transcripts

Miscellaneous Documents

Unpublished Papers

Letters re MHD

Tables

MHD Comments

Figures

ASPI Documents

Web Page PDFs

Pages Transfer


Measures of Association

(May 20, 2010; rev. Oct. 10, 2010)

 

A great deal of the material on this site, especially the discussion or references made available on the Measuring Health Disparities page (MHD) and its sub-pages, the Scanlan’s Rule page and its sub-pages, and the Mortality and Survival page, involves the fact that standard measures of differences between outcome rates are problematic for appraising the size of such differences between outcome rates because each is affected by the overall prevalence of an outcome.  Most notably, the rarer an outcome, the greater tends to be the relative differences in experiencing it and the smaller tends to be the relative difference in avoiding it.    

 

Most of this material, and especially the several score on-line comments found in Section D of MHD pertain to the appraisal of race/ethnic and socioeconomic differences in outcome rates.  But, while it is not invariably discussed in such terms, this material all relates to strength of association.  In Table 1 of the Mortality and Survival page, for example, the examination of racial differences by age group is simply a matter of appraising the effects of black race for each age group.  One could as well be examining the effects of smoking for each age group. 

 

Further, it should be borne in mind that all the examples discussed in the referenced materials could be looked at from a different perspective.  With regard to Table 1 just mentioned, one could just as well be appraising the effects of age on mortality in each racial group.  The issue of whether racial differences as to some outcome are larger among higher or lower socioeconomic groups could as well be examined in terms of whether the effects of higher or lower socioeconomic status on the outcome are different for different racial groups.  Similarly, as discussed in the Comment on Guthrie,[i] issues concerning whether overall outcome rates are changing more in one setting than another raise the same issues as whether outcome rates are changing more for one group than another.

 

Thus, in the same way that the aforementioned references call into question the soundness of health disparities research they call into question the soundness all efforts to measure strengths of association.  And the same reasons that support measuring health disparities in the manner not affected by the overall prevalence of an outcome described on the Solutions sub-page of MHD support such approach for measuring the strength of any association.  See Subgroup Effects sub-page of the Scanlan’s Rule page and the Comment on Sun.[ii]

 



[i] Recognizing implications of different base rates in measuring improvements in healthcare.  Health Aff (Millwood) Aug. 13, 2010 (responding to Guthrie B, Auerbck G, Bindman AB.  Health plan competition for Medicaid enrollees based on performance does not improve quality of care.  Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1507-1515)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/eletters/29/8/1507

 

 

[ii] Rethinking the premises of subgroup analyses. BMJ June 7, 2010 (responding to Sun X, Briel M. Walter SD, and Guyatt GH.  Is as subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluated the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:850-854): http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/mar30_3/c117