The Legal System's Use of EPIDEMIOLOGY: Some clarifications/The Authors Respond

By Korzeniewski, Steven James; Bryant, Arthur H. et al. | Judicature, November/December 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Legal System's Use of EPIDEMIOLOGY: Some clarifications/The Authors Respond


Korzeniewski, Steven James, Bryant, Arthur H., Reinert, Alexander A., Judicature


In their Judicature article "The legal system's use of epidemiology" (July-August 2003), Arthur Bryant and Alexander Reinert critique the judicial system's interpretation of population-based research, stating, "...the judicial system has failed to apply accurately scientific knowledge, and particularly epidemiology, in the courtroom." The proposed aim of the article was to "improve the means by which law relies on scientific disciplines." However, it contains several potentially harmful misinterpretations of statistical concepts and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the relevance of epidemiology to etiologic hypotheses and the consensus of the scientific community.

Thus, several clarifications are necessary if judges are to gain a full understanding of the concepts the authors attempted to convey. In particular, this article is intended to clarify misinterpretations and misunderstandings regarding the denial of the ability to conduct significance testing with confidence intervals; the confusion of a p-value with an alpha level; and the contention that preference toward epidemiological evidence when attributing causation is "against the weight of history" and not supported by the scientific community.

Understanding significance

I agree with Bryant and Reinert that the label of "statistical insignificance" should not bar experts from testifying about particular studies, although I also believe judges are correct in barring testimony asserting causal hypotheses based solely on single studies, significant or not, because this in no way would be accepted within the scientific community and would violate even the former Frye rules of admissibility. Thus, I question Bryant and Reinert's interpretation of judicial actions barring testimony based on significance because the context of those actions are not elaborated on within their article. I did not find any objective support of their assertion that judges were viewing studies/testimony only in relation to significance, or the absence thereof.

Furthermore, Bryant and Reinert express disapproval of courts labeling study results "statistically insignificant" when their confidence intervals included "one." But this label is absolutelyjustified regardless of the effect size because statistical significance is defined in relation to a confidence/significance level. It is impossible to say an association is statistically significant when a significance or confidence level has been violated.1 Statistically insignificant results may still provide indications of a true association, although it is important to understand that the probability of the association being derivative of chance when the null hypothesis is true violated a pre-specified limit (alpha).

The authors were most likely attempting to convey a long-standing controversy in epidemiology between statistical and clinical significance. Statistical significance merely indicates whether a result is derivative of chance given the null hypothesis at a specific level of confidence. On the other hand, clinical significance is defined in Last's Dictionary of Epidemiology as "a difference in effect size considered by experts to be important in clinical or policy decisions, regardless of the level of statistical significance."2 Granted, clinically significant results are not always statistically significant. However, judges are absolutely correct in characterizing study results as statistically insignificant when a pre-specified limit on random error has been violated. Significance testing always requires a pre-specified significance/confidence level, or alpha. The use of an alpha level does not preclude the ability to further analyze information captured by the pvalue and/or confidence interval; it merely puts the p-value and/or confidence interval into the context of the probability of those results being derivative of chance alone when in reality there is no association. Thus, judges should not be criticized for using a pre-specified cut-off for false positive results when in fact this practice is mandated by the act of significance testing.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Legal System's Use of EPIDEMIOLOGY: Some clarifications/The Authors Respond
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.