Avoiding Type II error in assessing lead toxicity plaintiffs
✍ Scribed by Frank J. Dyer
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 204 KB
- Volume
- 16
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0735-3936
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
This article discusses statistical parallels between excessive conservatism and insucient conservatism in rendering forensic opinions. The elements of a tort are reviewed and their relation to psychological and psychiatric opinions is also discussed, as are psychometric and clinical approaches to assessment of impairment and causation in individual lead poisoned children. It is argued that assessments in lead poisoning cases consisting solely of cranial nerve examinations result in considerable Type II Error. Sources of Type II Error in research using analysis of covariance techniques to study the toxic eects of lead include variance stealing, use of excessive numbers of covariates, lack of attention to interactions, and use of covariates that are actually substitute measures of lead ingestion. When experts cite nonsigni®cant ®ndings of studies of low-level lead exposure, it inappropriately negates lead eects in more severely lead poisoned plaintis. In true experimental studies where there is no ambiguity regarding causation, the destructive eects of lead are quite clear.