Government benefits OR definitions and the census strike again

Last week I got a little fascinated by the census bureau data…..and this weekend I was sent an article from the Wall Street Journal regarding yet another set of Census Bureau Data that was getting passed around.

This one addressed the number of households in the US receiving “government benefits”….apparently it’s up to 49.1%.
Now that’s a scary number, but I am always wary of the phrase “government benefits” when it’s used in a statistical context.  The problem is that it’s an incredibly vague term, and can be used to cover a myriad of programs….not all of which are what initially spring to mind.  
I first learned to be wary of this term when my dear liberal brother mentioned that some group he had been following had claimed that there was some ludicrous number of government handout programs in place today.  The number struck him as high, so he got on their website and found out that they were actually counting both federal assistance programs AND tax breaks (such as home interest deductions, student loan interest deductions, dependent credits, etc) as “entitlements”.  Thus in this case I am extra vigilant about my “find the definition” rule.
I took a look around the census website (we’ve become good friends lately) and found the list they were using as of 2008*:
  • Dept of Veteran’s Affairs – Compensation, Pension, Education Assistance
  • Medicare
  • Social Security
  • Unemployment
  • Workman’s Comp
  • Food Stamps
  • Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch and Breakfast Program
  • Housing Assistance
  • Federal and State Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
  • Medicaid
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
  • Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Not a terribly surprising list, though I wouldn’t have realized that Veteran’s benefits were on there.  Even without the economy going down hill or any other expansion of programs, the Veteran’s benefits most certainly would have expanded in the past few years as people continue

Additionally, it would be important to note that only one member of the household needed to receive this in order to be counted.  That struck me because my parents and my grandmother all live in the same house, which means both of my dear hard working parents are lumped in to that 49.1% number.

Whatever your feeling about government benefits, it’s important to know exactly which ones are being counted in any list.  I’d imagine that many people who might dislike Medicaid might not care to eliminate Veteran’s Benefits, and those who don’t like TANF may very well support workman’s comp.  Just something to be aware of, especially in an election year.

*To note: the latest data I could find was from 2008.  I really hate that the WSJ doesn’t link to where the heck it got it’s numbers.  I couldn’t find the stuff they put up anywhere on the census bureau website.  I’m not doubting them, I just wonder if it would have killed them to include a link????

Watch the definitions

A quick one for a Friday:

I’ve blogged before about paying careful attention to the definition of words used in study results.  It is often the case that the definition used in the study/statistic may not actually match what you presume the definition is.

Eugene Volokh posted a good example of this today, when he linked to this op-ed in the Detroit Free Press.  It cites a spokesperson from the Violence Policy Center who states that “Michigan is one of 10 states in which gun deaths now outpace motor vehicle deaths”.

My knee jerk reaction was that seemed high, but my tired Friday brain probably would have kept skimming.  Then I read why Volokh was posting it:

The number of accidental gun deaths in Michigan in 2009 (the most recent year reported in WISQARS) was … 12, compared to 962 accidental motor-vehicle-related deaths. 99% of the gun deaths in Michigan that year consisted of suicides (575) and homicides (495).

To be honest, I had presumed homicides were included, but suicide death didn’t even occur to me.   I’d be interested to see how many of the vehicular deaths were suicides, my guess is the percentage would not be as high as in the gun case.  Either way, I’m sure I’m not the only one who didn’t realize what was being counted.

Watch the definitions, and have a fabulous Memorial Day weekend!

When in doubt, blame the journalist: prenatal dieting edition

Sometimes bad science reporting makes me laugh, and sometimes it actually kind of stresses me out.  This is one of the “this stresses me out” times.

The headline reads: Diet during pregnancy is safe and reduces risk for complications, study finds

Now aside from being a bit on the garbled side, it’s a pretty provocative headline.  As someone who has been in and out of obstetrician’s offices for the past 7 months or so, it also runs counter to everything I’ve been told.  According to this write-up however, here’s a few things this study found:

 Is it safe for a pregnant woman to go on a diet? According to a new study, not only is it safe, but it can even be beneficial and reduce the risk of dangerous complications.

That would seem to contradict what my doctor has told me….but let’s read on (to what they found about dieting methods):

The researchers found that all three methods reduced a mother’s weight, but diet showed the greatest effect with an average reduction of almost 9 pounds. Pregnant moms who only exercised lost about 1.5 pounds, and moms who did a combination of diet and exercise lost an average of 2.2 pounds.

So they had mothers to be lose weight during pregnancy?  That seems….extra wrong….but go on:

Women who went on a calorie-restricted diet were 33 percent less likely to develop pre-eclampsia, a spike in blood pressure caused by significant amounts of protein in the urine.

Wait, now I know he’s just phoning it in.  Pre-eclampsia is not high blood pressure caused by protein in the urine, it’s high blood pressure AND high protein in the urine….in fact the Mayo Clinic article he links to says so.  

At this point, I took a look at the original study, and found other “oops” moments in the reporting.  First, the study never looked at “diets”.  What they actually looked at was “dietary interventions”…which they describe as follows:

Typical dietary interventions included a balanced diet consisting of carbohydrates, proteins, and fat and maintenance of a food diary. 

Since this was a meta-analysis, I took a look at the references, and in fact only one study cited directly looked at caloric restriction….the sort of thing most of us think of when we hear the word “diet”.

Furthermore, that part about the women’s weight being reduced?  It wasn’t.  Their weight gain was reduced.   …something the study authors are clear about, but the subsequent write up completely leaves out.

I actually got a little angry about this.  You can feel free to blame pregnancy hormones, but I find this sort of thing is just irresponsible.  CBS is a major news network, and people are going to take what they say seriously.  As the Assistant Village Idiot likes to point out, people believing faulty science on small things can be funny and doesn’t matter much….but when you realize bad studies could actually affect the way people live, it gets scary.  Someone following this story could do some real damage.  In fact, the article does get clearer towards the end (when it quotes the original study author), but that’s 6 paragraphs in.  It drives me nuts that a good a carefully thought through study can get reported so sloppily and potentially dangerously.  There is a world of difference between what most of us think of when we say “diet” and what the researchers here described, which was essentially just formalized pre-natal nutritional counseling.

Overall, real dieting during pregnancy is still dangerous….and can backfire in a big way.  Mother’s who are forced to restrict calories during pregnancy (famine victims, etc) actually wind up having children who are more likely to be obese and develop diabetes.  As a side note, one of the most fascinating studies on this is the Dutch Famine Study where mother’s who had temporary famine conditions during pregnancy could be studied for the long term effects on the children.

This is why it matters that the media report things correctly.  People should not walk away from reading about good science with bad ideas.  Words like “diet” or “weight reduction” do not mean the same thing as “dietary interventions” or “weight gain reduction”. No one should have to read to paragraph 7 to get accurate information.  That’s just bad form.

The only thing that could have made this story worse would have been an infographic.  I’m going to have nightmares about that tonight.

Why most marriage statistics are completely skewed

Apparently is now doing a “map of the week”.  This week, it was a map of states by marriage rate.  Can’t get it to format well….click on the map and drag to see other states.

It shows Nevada as the overwhelming winner, with Hawaii second.  This reminded me about my annoyance at most marriage data.

Marriage data is often quoted, but fairly poorly understood.  The top two states in the map above should tip you off as to the major problem with marriage data derived from the CDC in particular….it’s based on the state that issued the marriage license, not the state where the couple resides.  Since all (heterosexual) marriages affirmed by one state are currently recognized by every other state, state of residence information is not reported to the CDC.  This means that states with destination wedding type locations (Las Vegas anyone?) skew high, and all others are presumably a bit lower than they should be.  Anecdotally, it’s also conceivable that states with large meccas for young people (New York City, Boston, DC) may be artificially low because many young people return to their childhood home states to marry.  This

The other problem with marriage data is the resulting divorce data is even more skewed.  Quite a few states don’t report divorce statistics at all (California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota) and the statistics from the remaining states are often misinterpreted.  One of the most commonly quoted statistics is that “50% of marriages end in divorce”.  This isn’t true.

In any given year, there are about twice as many marriages as there are divorces….but thanks to changing population, changing marriage rates, people with multiple divorces, and the pool of the already married, this does not mean that half of all marriages end in divorce.  In fact, if you change the stat to “percent of people who have been married and divorced”, you wind up at only about 33%.  More explanation here.

Ultimately, when considering any marriage data, it is important to remember that there are no national databases for this stuff.  All data has to come from somewhere, and if the source is spotty, the conclusions drawn from the data will likely be wrong.  This all applies to quite a few types of data….but marriage data is used with such confidence that it’s tough to remember how terrible the sources are.  A few people have let me know that I’ve ruined infographics for them forever, and I’m hoping to do the same with all marriage data.

You’re welcome.

Food Deserts and Big City Living

The Assistant Village Idiot did a good post on a new report on the prevalence of “food deserts” and if this was the crisis it’s been reported to be.

While I will point out that the study refuting the idea of food deserts uses self reported data for height, weight and eating habits (check out my previous post on this issue), I was glad to see someone take this issue on.  Food deserts reporting has always fascinated me, mostly because I lived in the middle of the Boston area (albeit in different locations) for about 9 years.   The food desert idea always sort of baffled me, and when I took a look at the USDAs food desert locator, I notice that the only part of Boston proper or the close suburbs that qualifies as a food desert is…..Logan Airport.

I currently live in a suburb that is near 2 food deserts, so checking those out was interesting as well.  One is actually a small peninsula, and I happen to know you have to drive by a grocery store to get on the main route out there.  The other is next to the docks.

For cities, this data gets complicated by the fact that many very small grocers sell all sorts of produce in small spaces that wouldn’t make the list.  For rural areas, personal gardens are not counted.  I also liked that the article pointed out that some people researching this have done grocery stores/1000 people, a metric which make cities look bleak.  That’s a classic case of needing to review why you actually want the data.  A busy grocery store is not a lack of a grocery store.  Additionally, I have never seen one of these surveys that added in farmer’s markets or grocery store delivery services.  While not always the cheapest option, delivery services allowed me (when I was a broke college student) to buy in bulk and save money other ways.  They run about $7 ($5 when I was in college), when a train ride to and from the store was $4 round trip, and a taxi would have been at least $10 (not counting ghost taxis that exist almost exclusively in front of city grocery stores and help you with your groceries for around $5).

Overall, I’m sure access is an issue for some people, I just balk when people who don’t live in the middle of cities on a limited budget like I did try to tell me what it’s like.  I DO think that before we flip out about an issue, doing research as to how much access really affects obesity is key.  The number of regulations and reforms that get pushed without any data proving their relevance staggers me, and I’m glad to see someone questioning the wisdom in this case.

I do not think it means what you think it means….

Oh teamwork.

I sat in a fascinating talk yesterday about some pretty interesting team failures.  One in particular stuck out to me: two teams, working on the east and west coast, funded by a huge grant from the NSF.  One team was tasked with building a database, the other was going to populate it with all of the data.  A year’s worth of work later, it was discovered that the two teams had never clarified what they meant by several words (including the word data) and that the whole thing was completely useless.  
Now, there are several lessons in that story, but one of them is the importance of knowing what certain words mean to the people who are saying them.  This can be a big issue in reading research and interpreting data, especially around popular public health type issues.  There are many issues….”rape” “excessive drinking” “binge eating” and “substance abuse” to name a few….that people tend to believe there is one hard and fast definition for.  When reading studies on these things, always verify that the authors definition matches your own.  In looking for good examples of this, I found this report on some drinking statistics that were being floated around a few years ago.  

A new study from Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) claims that adults who drink excessively and youths who drink illegally account for over half of the alcohol consumed in the United States, and that the alcoholic beverage industry makes too much money from these groups to ever voluntarily address the problem.

 The article goes on to point out that if you look at the data, “excessive drinking” was defined as more than two servings of alcohol in one day, with no respect for height, weight, or frequency.  I somehow doubt this is the picture most people got when they read “adults who drink excessively”.

This comes up a lot in studies that have psychiatric diagnoses attached as well.  I have a friend who works with eating disorders who gets annoyed to no end that you can’t technically call someone anorexic until they’re 15% under a healthy body weight or have had their period stop, even if they stop eating for weeks.  Not many people know that up until this year, the FBI defined rape as something that could only happen to women.

Things to watch out for.

You can’t misquote a misquote

Yesterday I talked about sensational statistics and to always verify that there’s no missing adjectives that would change the statistic.  It was thus a bit serendipitous that today I happened to hear a debate about a misquoted statistic, and whether the quote or the misquote was more accurate.  It was on a podcast I listen to, and it was about a month old (sometimes I don’t keep up well).

It was happening around the time the contraception debate was at it’s most furious (see what I did there?  It was a federally mandated coverage of contraception debate, to give you all the adjectives).  Anyway, at the time the statistic about the prevalence of birth control usage among Catholic women was getting tossed around quite a bit.  The statistic, in it’s most detailed form, is this:  98% of self-identified Catholic women of child bearing age who are sexually active have used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.

Now, this stat rarely got quoted in it’s entirety.  First, I always think designating that the religions is self identified is important.  The women answering this survey didn’t have to clarify if they thought they were good Catholics, just Catholic.  Second, the “sexually active” got glossed over as well, despite the fact that it probably cuts down the numbers at least a bit (for young adult Catholics, to approximately 89% of respondents).  Third, “at some point”.  The study’s authors have justified this qualifier by arguing that if a woman is on birth control for years, then decides to start trying to have children and goes off of it, she would have been excluded.  Critics have argued that this strategy was designed to include women who may have tried it, decided it was wrong, and stopped.  Both have a point.

That being said, I most often heard this being quoted as “98% of Catholic women use birth control” or sometimes even “98% of Catholics use birth control”.  

It was that last phrase that got the debate going on the show I was listening to.  Person 1 argued that it annoyed him that people kept dropping the “women” part of the quote.  Person 2 shot back that it actually drove him nuts that people felt the need to add it.  He argued that for every straight female using contraception, there was by definition a straight man using it.  Unless one presumed a statistically significant number of women were misleading their partners, 98% of Catholic men were also using birth control (of course, even if they were being misled, they were actually still using it…just not knowingly).  Since according to Catholic doctrine the contraception mandate is for both genders, both parties are therefore guilty.

I liked the debate, and would be totally fascinated to hear the numbers on men who have used (or had a partner who used) contraception.  I am curious if a significant number don’t know, or would claim not to know.  I still think that clarifying “women” in the quote is fine, as it’s who the study was actually done on.  In my mind extrapolation should always be classified as extrapolation, not an actual finding.

Also of note, this was an in-person survey.  That’s always useful to realize that every answer given in a survey like this had to verbalize their answers to another person….important when the topic is anything highly subject to social pressures.  For a further breakdown of issues with that study, see here.

Beware the Adjective

My tax return showed up in my bank account this weekend, which is always nice (even if it was my money to begin with).  It brought to mind a few months back when people were big on the “50% of American households don’t pay any federal income tax” statistic.

Now, that was an interesting statistic, and one that no doubt caused a lot of emotion.  I mean, heck, this is my percent breakdown of taxes paid for 2011 (excluding sales-linked taxes…that retrospective would have taken all week):

Edit: My labels got a little hinky, so assume federal tax = federal income tax and state tax = state income tax.  So yes, life would have been a great deal cheaper if I could have avoided federal income tax.

Anyway, I was thinking about this when I stumbled across this chart:

Along with this post explaining that many of the households not paying taxes were actually older workers.  Interesting, but economic data is so easily manipulated it doesn’t normally catch my attention (example: no where on this graph does it indicate how large each population slice is…I’m sure there are far fewer people represented at the end of the graph than at the middle).

Anyway, what this jogged my memory about was how this statistic got quoted by many at the time.  Rick Warren was one of the more notable examples, but many people made the mistake of stating “half of all Americans pay no taxes”.  The “Federal Income” part of that phrase makes a huge difference.

I’m certainly not saying that everyone who misquotes a stat does so intentionally.  Many times it’s innocent, and thus it’s something to keep in mind when you hear a crazy statistic from anything but the source.  Politicians and other public speakers do just flat out miss words sometimes.  There are some pretty horrifying stats out there that become much more reasonable when the correct modifiers are put back in their place.  

Stand Back! I’m going to try SCIENCE!

Today I discovered that my favorite webcomic ( actually has a special comic up if you check it from my employer’s server.  Turns out the artist’s wife is a patient, doing well, and he wanted to show some love.  This post is thus titled for this shirt, which would make an awesome Christmas present for me, even in April.

Anyway, this weekend I saw this story with the headline “Study: Conservatives’ Trust In Science At Record Low”.

My first thought on seeing this was that the word “science” is a loaded word.  I mean, I’m as much a science geek as anyone.  Math’s my favorite, but science will always be a close second.  But do I trust science? I’m not sure.  Something really bothered me about that question, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until I read this post on the study from First Things today.  

My love of science makes me a skeptic.  I makes me question relentlessly and then continuously revisit to figure what got left out.  I don’t trust science because not trusting your assumptions is science done right.  If we could all trust our assumptions, what would we need science for?  This is the problem with vague questions and loaded words.  Much like the discussion in the comments section of this post where several commenters weighed in on the word “delegate” in relation to household tasks, it’s clear that people will interpret the phrase “trust science” in many different ways.

Some might say it means the scientific method, scientists, science as a career, science’s role in the world, or something else not springing to mind.  Given the vagueness of the question though, I would have a hard time actually calling anyone’s interpretation wrong.  Mine is based on my own bias, but I would wager everyone’s is.  So isn’t this survey more about how we’re defining a phrase than about anything else?

I thought my annoyance was going to end there, I really did.

Then I looked at the graph with the story, and had no choice but to get annoyed all over again.

That’s what I get for just reading headlines.

So over the course of this survey, moderates have consistently trusted science less than conservatives for all but four data points?  Why didn’t this get mentioned?  I found the original study and took a quick look for the breakdown: 34% self identified as conservative, 39% as moderate, and 27% as liberal.  So 73% of the population has shown a significant drop off in “trust of science” and yet they’re somehow portrayed as the outliers?  Science and technology have changed almost unimaginably since 1974, and yet liberal’s opinions about all that haven’t changed*?  Does that strike anyone else as the more salient feature here?

*Technically this may not be true.  I don’t know what the self identified proportions were in 1974, so it could be a self-identification shift.  Still.  This might be that media bias everyone’s always talking about.