Steps 3 & 4: Evaluating types of evidence.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lesson 3 ODOT Analysis & Assessment. Analysis & Assessment Learning Outcomes As part of a small group, apply the two- part analysis by generating exposure-
Advertisements

Deriving Biological Inferences From Epidemiologic Studies.
Define the Case List Candidate Causes Evaluate Data from the Case Evaluate Data from Elsewhere Identify Probable Cause Detect or Suspect Biological Impairment.
Causality Inferences. Objectives: 1. To understand the concept of risk factors and outcome in a scientific way. 2. To understand and comprehend each and.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Sensitivity Analysis for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
EVAL 6970: Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs Dr. Chris L. S. Coryn Kristin A. Hobson Fall 2013.
Measuring and Monitoring Program Outcomes
Correlation AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Estimation and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare.
CADDIS Workshop [Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System] New Jersey Water Restoration, Protection, and Planning Working Group Rutgers University,
Identifying the probable cause. 2 Define the Case List Candidate Causes Evaluate Data from the Case Evaluate Data from Elsewhere Identify Probable Cause.
1 Susan Cormier and Charles Lane Environmental Protection Agency Scott Neimela and Joel Chirhart, U.S. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S.A. Design.
The Stressor Identification Process. 2 Define the Case List Candidate Causes Evaluate Data from the Case Evaluate Data from Elsewhere Identify Probable.
EVAL 6970: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs
Chapter 12 (Ch. 11 in 2/3 Can. Ed.) Bivariate Association for Tabular Data: Basic Concepts.
Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Fisheries Management
Chapter 2: The Research Enterprise in Psychology
Chapter 5 Research Methods in the Study of Abnormal Behavior Ch 5.
ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition
Chapter 2 The Research Enterprise in Psychology. n Basic assumption: events are governed by some lawful order  Goals: Measurement and description Understanding.
Steps 1 & 2: Defining the case & listing candidate causes.
An EPA Sponsored Literature Review Database to Support Stressor Identification Benjamin Jessup Cathy Cresswell Tetra Tech, Inc. Patricia Shaw-Allen, Ph.D.
EVAL 6970: Cost Analysis for Evaluation Dr. Chris L. S. Coryn Nick Saxton Fall 2014.
Learning Objectives Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons,Inc Primary Data Collection: Experimentation CHAPTER Seven.
The Research Enterprise in Psychology. The Scientific Method: Terminology Operational definitions are used to clarify precisely what is meant by each.
Monitoring Principles Stella Swanson, Ph.D.. Principle #1: Know Why We Are Monitoring Four basic reasons to monitor:  Compliance Monitoring: to demonstrate.
Steps 3 & 4: Evaluating types of evidence for the Truckee River case study.
Benthic Community Assessment Tool Development Ananda Ranasinghe (Ana) Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) Sediment.
Evaluating Fish Response to Habitat Restoration Overview of Intensively Monitored Watershed Research in the PNW Rationale for IMW approach Extent of current.
Reading Health Research Critically The first four guides for reading a clinical journal apply to any article, consider: the title the author the summary.
Step 5: Identifying probable causes. 2 What’s going on at Pretend Creek? TYPE OF EVIDENCE↑ metals↑ temp↓ DO Data from the case Spatial co-occurrenceYESNO.
Steps 3 & 4: Analysis & interpretation of evidence.
Chapter 2 The Research Enterprise in Psychology. Table of Contents The Scientific Approach: A Search for Laws Basic assumption: events are governed by.
1 CADDIS - Risk-based Prioritization and Diagnosing the Risk Drivers Susan Cormier, Ph.D. NCEA-Cincinnati and the whole CADDIS team.
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
Steps 1 & 2: Defining the case & listing candidate causes for the Truckee River case study.
Detecting Ecological Effects of Development in the Wappingers and Fishkill Watersheds Karin Limburg, Karen Stainbrook, Bongghi Hong SUNY College of Environmental.
Development of Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Rivers and Streams in Ohio Ohio EPA ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
Acute Toxicity Studies Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose) 14 day observation In-life observations (body wt., food consumption,
Professional Communication: The Corporate Insider’s Approach Chapter Five Reasoning: Framing the Sound Business Argument.
Chapter 2 Research Methods.
Watershed Health Indicators
Aquatic, Watershed, and Earth Resources
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Chloride in Urban Streams in Maine
8. Causality assessment:
THE FIELD OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Cautions About Correlation and Regression
Making it more relevant! Higher-tier data and Weight of Evidence Day 2. Adam Peters and Graham Merrington 2017.
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
Quality Risk Management
9. Introduction to signal detection
Public Meeting February 3, 2010
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
Foodborne Disease Outbreak Investigation Team Training
CHAPTER 4 Designing Studies
Des Plaines River Watershed Workgroup Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Bivariate Association: Introduction and Basic Concepts
Correlation and Causality
CHAPTER 4 Designing Studies
Cain, DJ, Carter, JL, Buchwalter, DB, and Luoma, SN
Foodborne Disease Outbreak Investigation Team Training:
Causation Learning Objectives
Statistical Reasoning December 8, 2015 Chapter 6.2
Analysis of Complex Designs
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Relationship Relation: Association: real and spurious Statistical:
Effect Modifiers.
Presentation transcript:

Steps 3 & 4: Evaluating types of evidence

Evaluate Data from the Case Define the Case List Candidate Causes Evaluate Data from Elsewhere Identify Probable Cause Detect or Suspect Biological Impairment As Necessary: Acquire Data and Iterate Process Identify and Apportion Sources Management Action: Eliminate or Control Sources, Monitor Results Biological Condition Restored or Protected Decision-maker Stakeholder Involvement Stressor Identification Step 3: Evaluate Data from the Case Step 4:

Use all available types of evidence to make an inferential assessment Types of evidence using data from the case Spatial/temporal co-occurrence Evidence of exposure or biological mechanism Causal pathway Stressor-response relationships from the field Manipulation of exposure Laboratory tests of site media Temporal sequence Verified predictions Symptoms Types of evidence using data from elsewhere Stressor-response relationships from other field studies Stressor-response relationships from laboratory studies Stressor-response relationships from ecological simulation models Mechanistically plausible cause Manipulation of exposure at other sites Verified predictions Analogous stressors italics indicates commonly available types of evidence

Basic analysis strategy Develop as many types of evidence, for as many candidate causes, as you can you won’t have all types of evidence, for all candidate causes most effective when you can compare results across candidate causes Show your work make your process transparent & reproducible make use of appendices

Definition Types of evidence are categories of relationships that provide logically distinct ways to support, weaken, or refute the case for a candidate cause.

Why so many types of evidence? Helps make sure that potential sources of evidence are not overlooked The label associated with a particular piece of evidence is not important, provided you: Are consistent across candidate causes Don’t double-count data

Use all available types of evidence to make an inferential assessment Types of evidence using data from the case Spatial/temporal co-occurrence Evidence of exposure or biological mechanism Causal pathway Stressor-response relationships from the field Manipulation of exposure Laboratory tests of site media Temporal sequence Verified predictions Symptoms Types of evidence using data from elsewhere Stressor-response relationships from other field studies Stressor-response relationships from laboratory studies Stressor-response relationships from ecological simulation models Mechanistically plausible cause Manipulation of exposure at other sites Verified predictions Analogous stressors italics indicates commonly available types of evidence

Spatial/temporal co-occurrence SUPPORTS Impairment occurs where stressor is present WEAKENS Impairment does not occur where stressor is present, or occurs where stressor is not present

Spatial/temporal co-occurrence SUPPORTS WEAKENS APPLICABLE DATA: Measures of proximate stressors & impairments Impaired & reference sites

Example: spatial co-occurrence Candidate Cause Measurement [total metals & ammonia (mg/L)] Upstream reference Watershed reference Impaired site Adverse change compared to references TOXICS Al 0.080 0.037 0.101 Yes Cd ND No Cr 0.005 Cu 0.004 Fe 0.395 0.208 0.695 Ni 0.001 Pb Zn 0.006 0.011 NH3 0.1

Spatial/temporal co-occurrence Issues & recommendations: Simple comparison – is exposure to proximate stressor greater where/when impairment occurs? Don’t consider whether magnitude of stressor is sufficient Magnitude considered under other types of evidence (e.g., stressor-response relationships from elsewhere) Consider uncertainty & variability in data set, but don’t rely on statistical tests Only use measurements of proximate stressor Other measurements are considered under “Causal pathway”

Causal pathway SUPPORTS WEAKENS Steps in causal pathway observed, and coincide with impairment WEAKENS Steps in causal pathway not observed, and do not coincide with impairment

Causal pathway APPLICABLE DATA: Measures of other steps in causal pathways & impairments Impaired & reference sites

Example: causal pathway Pathway supported compared to references Data Reference sites Impaired site Pathway supported compared to references Habitat Index [% of reference] 68 100 32 Yes BOD [mg/L] 1.1 1.6 Tree canopy moderate high low Bank stability 10 8 No Velocity 15 16 11 % Impervious surface Illicit discharge absent present Substrate composition % Boulder 33 25 % Cobble 50 % Gravel 13 % Sand 12 Candidate causes: ↓ dissolved oxygen; Δ food resources

Causal pathway Issues & recommendations: Similar to spatial co-occurrence, but uses data from entire causal chain When in doubt, assume a step exists Evidence of missing step is powerful; evidence of many intermediate steps increases confidence May be able to eliminate one pathway, but rarely can eliminate all pathways ↓ dissolved oxygen ↑ nitrogen ↓ fish ↑ algae

Stressor-response relationships from the field SUPPORTS Impairment decreases as exposure to stressor decreases WEAKENS Impairment increases as exposure to stressor decreases

Stressor-response relationships from the field APPLICABLE DATA: Measures of proximate stressors or other steps in causal pathways & impairments Sites varying in exposure to proximate stressor

Example: stressor-response from the field SUPPORT: Conductivity (uS/cm) WEAKEN: Nitrate + nitrite (mg/l)

Stressor-response relationships from the field Issues & recommendations: Evaluate direction & strength of relationship Look at r & r2 Need to define “strong” Be wary of statistical tests Correlation ≠ causation

Other types of evidence using data from case TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Manipulation of exposure Impairment improves after stressor is removed Laboratory tests of site media Exposure to site media in lab tests results in effects similar to impairment Evidence of exposure or biological mechanism Measurements of biota (e.g., biomarkers, tissue residues) show proposed mechanism of exposure has occurred Verified predictions Predictions based on stressor’s mode of action are made & confirmed at site Temporal sequence Exposure to stressor precedes impairment Symptoms Only one stressor supports observed symptom

Use all available types of evidence to make an inferential assessment Types of evidence using data from the case Spatial/temporal co-occurrence Evidence of exposure or biological mechanism Causal pathway Stressor-response relationships from the field Manipulation of exposure Laboratory tests of site media Temporal sequence Verified predictions Symptoms Types of evidence using data from elsewhere Stressor-response relationships from other field studies Stressor-response relationships from laboratory studies Stressor-response relationships from ecological simulation models Mechanistically plausible cause Manipulation of exposure at other sites Verified predictions Analogous stressors italics indicates commonly available types of evidence

Stressor-response relationships from other field studies

Stressor-response relationships from the lab

Example: stressor-response from lab studies CT Values (ug/L) Daphnids (ug/L) Test EC20 MR1 Exceeded at MR1? MR3 Exceeded at MR3? Al None1 1900 540 82.2 No 107 Cd 0.62 0.15 0.75 0.4 Yes 0.5 Cr 100 <44 0.2 2 Cu 4.8 0.23 0.205 2.2 2.5 Fe 4380 - 522.8 532 Ni 88 <5 45 0.3 Pb 1.2 12.3 0.8 Zn 58.2 46.73 6.5 8.6 NH3 1430-2470 630 120

Applying stressor-response from elsewhere Use care when extrapolating from test systems → your system! OTHER FIELD STUDIES: taxa differ (EPT ≠ EPT) co-varying stressors confounding factors LAB STUDIES: different test organisms single-stressor exposures not representative of field conditions no biotic interactions criteria often protective, not effects-based

Other types of evidence using data from elsewhere TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Mechanistically plausible cause Relationship between stressor & impairment is consistent with current scientific knowledge Stressor-response relationships from ecological simulation models Stressor is at levels associated with impairment in mathematical models simulating ecological processes Manipulation of exposure Impairment improves after stressor is removed at another site Analogous stressors Stressor is structurally similar to other stressors known to cause impairment Verified predictions Predictions based on stressor’s mode of action are made & confirmed at other sites

Looking ahead a little… In Step 5 [Identify probable cause], you score each type of evidence you have data for Some types of evidence are stronger than others, and these differences are reflected in how each type of evidence is scored

The scoring system R refutes D diagnoses +++ convincingly supports (or weakens - - -) ++ strongly supports (or weakens - -) + somewhat supports (or weakens - ) 0 neither supports nor weakens NE no evidence

Scoring of spatial/temporal co-occurrence + The effect occurs where or when the candidate cause occurs, OR the effect does not occur where or when the candidate cause does not occur. It is uncertain whether the candidate cause and the effect co-occur. - - - The effect does not occur where or when the candidate cause occurs, OR the effect occurs where or when the candidate cause does not occur. R The effect does not occur where or when the candidate cause occurs, OR the effect occurs where or when the candidate cause does not occur, AND the evidence is indisputable.

Types of evidence exercise Next: let’s try it out! Types of evidence exercise

Let’s go back to Pretend Creek… forest PC1 PC2 Pretend Springs city limit NC1 NC2 dairy farm subdivision unimpaired site impaired site WWTP industrial facility dam

Pair off & work on the types of evidence exercise