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


Appraising Representational Disparities

(May 7, 2010)

 

This item addresses the impossibility of soundly appraising the size of a difference between the proportion a group comprises of persons who might experience some outcome and the proportion the group comprises of persons who actually experiencing the outcome. 

 

Most of the disparities measurement issues addressed on this page involve comparisons of the rates at which two or more groups experience some favorable or adverse outcome.  There are, however, a variety of settings where, often for want of better information, a disparities issue is framed in terms of the difference between the proportion a group comprises of persons who might experience some outcome and the proportion the group comprises of those who experience the outcome.  Examples of the latter include:

 

o   Comparison between the proportion a group comprises of drivers and the proportion it comprises of persons stopped by law enforcement officials.

 

o   Comparison between the proportion a group comprises of the total population and the proportion it comprises of persons in poverty, persons selected for jury duty, etc. 

 

o   Comparison between the proportion a group comprises of applicants and the proportion it comprises of hires.

 

o   Comparison between the proportion a group comprises of employees and the proportion it comprises of terminated employees.

 

In such cases, a disparity is often measured in terms of the difference between the actual and the expected proportions the group comprises of those experiencing the outcome and it may be measured in terms similar to the measures typically employed in evaluating differences in outcome rates.  For example, if Group A comprises 20% of applicants and 10% of hires, the disparity might be discussed in terms to the effect that Group A comprised 50% fewer hires than expected or to the effect that the proportion it comprised of hires was 10 percentage points less than expected.  

 

It is also possible to determine the relative difference between the selection rates of Group A and persons not in Group A, which we can term Group B.  In the example just mentioned we would first derive for each group the ratio of the proportion it comprises of selections to the proportion it comprises of those eligible to be selected – thus, for Group A, 10/20, or .5, and for Group B, 90/80, or 1.125.  Then, depending on which of those two ratios we used as the numerator in another ratio, we could say either (a) that the ratio of Group B’s selection rate to Group A’s selection rate is 2.25, which means that members of Group B are 125% more likely to be selected than members of Group A, or (b) that the ratio of Group A’s selection rate to Group B’s selection rate is .222, which means that members of Group A are 77.8% less likely to be selected than members of Group B.  Notice, however, that while we can derive the relative differences between the rates, we cannot derive the rates themselves.

 

As discussed on the Measuring Health Disparities (MHD) and the Scanlan’s Rule pages of this site, most efforts to appraise the differences between even known outcome rates as they bear on some issue in the law or the social and medical sciences are flawed for failing to consider the way standard measures of differences are affected by the overall prevalence of an outcome.  But at least when we know the actual rates, we can frequently derive a sound measure of differences between rates by means of the method described on the Solutions sub-page of MHD.

 

But to do that we must know the actual outcome rates, not just the relative difference between the outcome rates.  Since we cannot determine the actual outcome rates based solely on the proportions a group comprises of those eligible to experience some outcome and those experiencing the outcome, there exists no sound method for appraising the size of the difference between the proportion a group comprises of those eligible and the proportion of those selected.  That is, for example, we cannot determine whether a situation where a group comprises 20% of applicants and 10% of hire involves a larger or smaller disparity than one where it comprises 15% of applicants and 5% of hires even though we know that the relative difference is larger in the latter case.  See Case Study sub-page of Scanlan’s Rule page.