James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

page1

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measurement Letters

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

page3

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

Whitehall Studies

AHRQ's Vanderbilt Report

NHDR Measurement

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Spurious Contradictions

Institutional Corresp

page2

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Bibliography

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Case Study II

Subgroup Effects

Subgroup Effects NC

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Interactions by Age

Literacy Illustration

RERI

Feminization of Poverty S

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Mort/Surv Illustration

Credit Score Illustration

Intermediate Outcomes

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Criminal Record Effects

Sears Case Illustration

Numeracy Illustration

Obesity Illusration

LIHTC Approval Disparitie

Recidivism Illustration

Consensus

Algorithm Fairness

Mortality and Survival 2

Mort/Survival Update

Measures of Association

Immunization Disparities

Race Health Initiative

Educational Disparities

Disparities by Subject

CUNY ISLG Eq Indicators

Harvard CRP NCLB Study

New York Proficiency Disp

Education Trust GC Study

Education Trust HA Study

AE Casey Profic Study

McKinsey Achiev Gap Study

California RICA

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Less Discr Alt - Proc

Less Discr Altl - Subs

Fisher v. Transco Serv

Jones v. City of Boston

Bottom Line Issue

Lending Disparities

Inc & Cred Score Example

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Absolute Differences - L

Lathern v. NationsBank

US v. Countrywide

US v. Wells Fargo

Partial Picture Issues

Foreclosure Disparities

File Comparison Issues

FHA/VA Steering Study

CAP TARP Study

Disparities by Sector

Holder/Perez Letter

Federal Reserve Letter

Discipline Disparities

COPAA v. DeVos

Kerri K. V. California

Truancy Illustration

Disparate Treatment

Relative Absolute Diff

Offense Type Issues

Los Angeles SWPBS

Oakland Disparities

Richmond Disparities

Nashville Disparities

California Disparities

Denver Disparities

Colorado Disparities

Nor Carolina Disparitie

Aurora Disparities

Allegheny County Disp

Evansville Disparities

Maryland Disparities

St. Paul Disparities

Seattle Disparities

Minneapolis Disparities

Oregon Disparities

Beaverton Disparities

Montgomery County Disp

Henrico County Disparitie

Florida Disparities

Connecticut Disparities

Portland Disparities

Minnesota Disparities

Massachusetts Disparities

Rhode Island Disparities

South Bend Disparities

Utah Disparities

Loudoun Cty Disparities

Kern County Disparities

Milwaukee Disparities

Urbana Disparities

Illinois Disparities

Virginia Disparities

Behavior

Suburban Disparities

Preschool Disparities

Restraint Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

Keep Kids in School Act

Gender Disparities

Ferguson Arrest Disp

NEPC Colorado Study

NEPC National Study

California Prison Pop

APA Zero Tolerance Study

Flawed Inferences - Disc

Oakland Agreement

DOE Equity Report

IDEA Data Center Guide

Duncan/Ali Letter

Crim Justice Disparities

U.S. Customs Search Disp

Deescalation Training

Career Criminal Study

Implicit Bias Training

Drawing Inferences

Diversion Programs

Minneapolis PD Investig

Offense Type Issues CJD

Innumerate Decree Monitor

Massachusetts CJ Disparit

Feminization of Poverty

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

Sears Case Documents

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

Multiplication Definition

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

Indexes

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

Sears Documents

Pages Transfer


Obesity Illustration

(Aug. 26, 2020)

This page uses published data on black and white rates of falling into various levels of obesity to illustrate the pattern whereby the rarer an outcome the greater tends to be the relative difference in experiencing it and the smaller tends to be the relative difference in avoiding it (or, more precisely put, the more the outcome is restricted to the most susceptible part of the overall population the greater tends to be the relative difference in experiencing it and the smaller tends to be the relative difference in avoiding it).  It is a pattern I have discussed in scores of places since 1987, most notably in “Measuring Discipline Disparities,” Testimony for U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing “The School to Prison Pipeline: The Intersection of Students of Color with Disabilities” (Dec. 8, 2017),  Comments for the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (Nov. 14, 2016), “The Mismeasure of Health Disparities,” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice (July/Aug. 2016), Letter to American Statistical Association (Oct. 8, 2015), Amicus Curiae brief in Scanlan in Texas Department of Housing and Community Development, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., Supreme Court No. 13-1731 (Nov. 17, 2014), “Race and Mortality Revisited,” Society (July/Aug. 2014), “Measuring Health and Healthcare Disparities,” Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 2013 Research Conference (March 2014), “The Mismeasure of Discrimination,” Faculty Workshop, University of Kansas School of Law (Sept. 20, 2013), Letter to Harvard University  (Oct. 9, 2012), “The Misinterpretation of Health Inequalities in the United Kingdom,” British Society for Populations Studies 2006 Conference (Sept. 18-20, 2006), “Can We Actually Measure Health Disparities?,” Chance (Spring 2006), “Race and Mortality,” Society (Jan./Feb. 2000), “Divining Difference,” Chance (Fall 1994), “The Perils of Provocative Statistics,” Public Interest (Winter 1991).  See also the methods workshops at University of Massachusetts Medical School (2015), UC Irvine (2015), George Mason University (2014), University of Maryland (2014), University Minnesota (2014), University of Kansas School of Law (2013), Harvard (2012), American University (2012), and twenty-two conference presentations given in Europe and North American between 2001 and 2011.  The above materials often illustrate the pattern (and other pertinent patterns by which measures tend to be affected by the prevalence of an outcome) using hypothetical test score data that show how lowering a test cutoff (or improving test performance) tends to increase relative differences between failure rates but reduce relative differences between pass rates of higher and lower scoring groups) and income data that show how reducing poverty tends to increase relative racial differences in poverty rates while reducing relative racial differences in rates of avoiding poverty, as well as other published data of the type discussed here.

Listed below are various other data of this nature that I have to illustrate that the rarer an outcome the greater tends to be the relative difference in rates of experiencing and the smaller tends to be the relative difference in avoiding it (with a brief description of the nature of the illustration).  It should be kept in mind that it does not matter whether the issue is discussed in terms of a favorable outcome or the corresponding adverse outcome or whether the focus is on whether the outcome is decreasing or increasing.  Differences is usage in the parenthetical descriptions may reflect inconsistency/inexactness on my part or may involve whether the data show what tends to happen or what in fact would happen.  That is, with respect the latter, data in the second and third rows of Table 2 in "Race and Mortality Revisited" (at 330), for example, show the directions of changes in measures between the two rows that would in fact occur if everyone with incomes above 75% of the poverty line were enabled to escape poverty but merely show what would tend to occur in the case of a general reduction in poverty. 

Other data of the type used here that illustrate the referenced statistical pattern include:

 (a) income and credit score data (showing that the lower an income or credit score requirement, the greater tend to be relative racial differences in failure to meet the requirement while the smaller tend to be relative racial differences in meeting the requirement);

(b) life tables (showing that the higher the age, and thus the lower are overall rates of reaching it, the greater tend to be relative racial and gender differences in failure to reach it while the smaller tend to be relative racial and gender differences in reaching it);

(c) NHANES data on systolic blood pressure and folate level (showing that general improvement in control of systolic blood pressure and general increases in folate tend to increase relative differences in the adverse outcomes (hypertension, low folate) while reducing relative differences in the corresponding favorable outcomes (avoiding hypertension, adequate folate);

(d) Framingham Studies data (showing how improving heart attack risk profiles in a way that generally reduces heart attack risk tends to increase relative gender differences in heart attack risk while reducing relative gender differences in risks of avoiding heart attacks);

(e) health numeracy data (showing that the lower the health numeracy level, the greater tend to be relative differences between rates at which insured and uninsured persons fail to reach it, while the smaller tend to be relative differences between the rates at which they reach it);

(f) literacy data (showing that the lower the level of reading proficiency, the larger the relative racial difference in failing to reach the level and the smaller the relative racial difference in reaching it);

(g) truancy data (showing that greater the level of truancy, the larger the relative racial difference in rates of reaching the level);

(h) California prison data (showing that the greater number of convictions of incarcerated persons, the larger is the relative racial difference in reaching or exceeding the number and the smaller is the relative racial difference in rate of failure to reach the level). 

Such data illustrate why restricting an outcome to those most susceptible to it will tend to increase relative differences in rates of experiencing the outcome and reduce relative differences in rates of avoiding the outcome.  The illustrations may be compared to illustrations such as discussed in my Maryland State Department of Education (June 26, 2018) (at 3-4) that use black and white rates of (a) one or more suspensions and (b) multiple suspensions to show how eliminating what otherwise would be first suspensions will tend to increase relative racial differences in rates of being suspended one or more times while reducing relative racial differences in having no suspensions).  The illustration may also be compared to illustrations discussed in a June 29, 2020 BMJ response that uses mortality rates of different racial or gender groups among younger and older seriously ill COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom to show how giving the older patients the same chances of survival as the younger patients would increase relative racial/ethnic and gender differences in mortality, but reduce relative racial/ethnic and gender differences in survival, among the older patients. They may also be compared to illustrations based on the effects of altering a point on the x-axis for an array of two normal distributions, such as shown, for example, in Figure 1 of  “Divining Difference,” Chance (Fall 1994) or Figure 1 (slide 23) of the 2015 University of Massachusetts Medical School seminar titled  “The Mismeasure of Health Disparities in Massachusetts and Less Affluent Places, on the proportions of each of two group that would fall on either side of the point and the resultant effects of measures of difference between the proportions of each group on either side of the point. 

Such illustrations should be contrasted with the illustrations based on what in point of fact typically occurs when an outcome is restricted to those most susceptible to it, of which there are many illustrations in the references in the first paragraph and scores of pages on this site.  The latter illustrations, while showing that the patterns that an informed observer should expect to see in fact usually do occur, especially when there is a large change in the prevalence of an outcome, do not show why such patterns occur.  The illustrations that are the focus of this page should also be contrasted with the illustrations of the way relative differences in adverse outcomes tend to be larger, while relative differences in the corresponding favorable outcomes smaller, where the outcomes are less common, such as is the focus of the University of Massachusetts Medical School seminar mentioned in the paragraph above or such as reflected in the larger relative differences in adverse outcomes, but smaller relative differences in the corresponding favorable outcomes, among higher-income compared with lower-income loan applicants or younger cancer patients compared with older cancer patients.  But it should be recognized many of the latter types of patterns can be regarded as illustrating why giving the less advantaged subpopulation the same favorable/adverse outcome prospects as the more advantaged subpopulation will tend to increase relative demographic differences in adverse outcome among the less advantaged subpopulation, as in the situation discussed in the June 29, 2020 BMJ response mentioned above.  Thus, certain distinctions between the types of illustrations may be regarded as involving matters of perspective.

This page is based on data in a July 12, 2012 Gallup article titled “In U.S., Blacks Most likely to Be Very Obese, Asians Least.”  A table in the report shows for various racial/ethnic groups rates of falling into three obese classes defined by Body Mass Indexes: Obese Class I = BMI 30.00 to 34.99; Obese Class II = BMI 35.00 to 39.99; Obese Class III – BMI 40.00 and above.  Table 1 below is based on the article’s table that shows that black and white rates of falling into each of the Obese Classes are 20.8% and 16.4% for Class I, 8.8% and 5.6% for Class II, and 6.0% and 3.1% for Class 3. 

For the reasons discussed in places such as my Intermediate Outcomes and Truancy Illustration pages, the rates from the article are translated into rates of (a) falling into any class (i.e., being obese at all), (b) falling into Classes II or III, and (c) falling into Class III.  These are shown in the first two data columns.  The third and fourth data columns then show the rates as which blacks and whites do not fall into the categories (denoted BF and WF for rates of experiencing the corresponding favorable outcomes).  The fifth and sixth data columns show the relative differences in rates of experiencing the adverse outcome (as reflected by the ratio of the black rate to the white rate) and the relative differences in rates of avoiding the outcome (as reflected by ratio of the white rate of avoiding the outcome to the black rate of avoiding the outcome).

Table 1.  Black and white rates of falling into certain levels of obesity and not falling into those level, with relative risks for experiencing the outcomes and avoiding the outcomes (ref. bb2025 b1).

Row

Obesity Class

B

W

BF

WF

B/W Ratio Adverse Outcome

W/B Ratio Favorable Outcome

1

All

35.60%

25.10%

64.40%

74.90%

1.42

1.16

2

II or III

14.80%

8.70%

85.20%

91.30%

1.70

1.07

3

III

6.00%

3.10%

94.00%

96.90%

1.94

1.03

 

Moving down the rows, one observes the effect of improving weight control such as enable all persons who are currently in Class I to escape obesity (Row 2 compared with Row 1) and the effects of further improving weight control to enable all persons in both Classes I and II to escape obesity (Row 3 compared with Row 2).  The improvements would reduce the relative difference between black and white rates of being obese but increase the relative difference between rates at which blacks and whites avoid obesity.  The data similarly show that the improvements would cause whites to experience the larger proportionate decrease in rates of experiencing the adverse outcomes while causing blacks to experience the larger proportionate increase in rates of avoiding the outcomes.  As discussed in many of the references, that reducing an outcome tends to cause (a) a larger proportionate decrease in rates of experiencing the outcome for the group with the lower baseline rate for the outcome while causing a (b) larger proportionate increase in the opposite outcome for the other group is simply a corollary to the pattern whereby the rarer an outcome (a) the greater tends to be the relative difference in rates of experiencing it and (b) the smaller tends to be the relative difference in rates of avoiding it.  For a discussion of why, rather being counterintuitive, the coexistence of (a) and (b) is inevitable, and that in fact (a) and (b) are the same things, see note 14 (at 10) of the Letter to American Statistical Association (Oct. 8, 2015).

Two further observation on these data.  First, according to the method described in "Race and Mortality Revisited" (termed EES for estimated effect size or, more formally, probit d'), the difference between the forces causing black and white rate to differ vary negligibly from row to row (being .302 in the first, .314 in the second, and .312 in the third.   That means that given the black and white rates of being obese are 35.6% and 25.1%, and that the black rate of falling into Class III was 6.0%, one would estimate a probable white rate of 3.166% for falling into Class III.  A slightly different figure would be derived from the actual (i.e., less rounded) black and white rates in the first row and black rate in the third row.  See the discussion in my California Reading Instruction Competence Assessment web page regarding the way that given the passing rates of various groups for the first time they take a test may, any group’s passing rate after multiple administrations of the test, one may closely estimate any other group’s pass rate after multiple administrations of the test.  But I would not expect estimates like this generally to as closely approximate reality as in the instant case or the case of the California test.

Second, given that obesity is an important risk factor for death from COVID-19, the data in the table also illustrate the way that improvements in COVID-19 care such as, for example, to give persons in Obese Class III the same survival prospects as persons in Obese Class II will tend to increase relative differences in rates at which persons infected with COVID-19 die from the disease while decreasing relative racial differences in rates at which such persons survive the disease.  The same point, which is made explicitly above with regard to data on seriously ill COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom, could be illustrated with NHANES data on systolic blood pressure that is the subject of item (c) of the above list of illustrative data.