Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement: tracking the footprints

Private-public partnerships are increasingly seen as an important mechanism for improving community health. Despite their popularity, traditional evaluations of these efforts have produced negative or mixed results. This is often attributed to weak interventions or an insufficient period of time to observe an impact. This study examines two additional possibilities--the need for a well-articulated shared vision and the governance and management capabilities of the partnership itself. We conducted a midstream process evaluation of twenty-five community partnerships associated with the Community Care Network (CCN) Demonstration Program. We examined how the roles of a common shared vision, strong governance, and effective management influence a partnership's ability to achieve its objectives. The findings, based on both qualitative and quantitative analyses, underscore the importance of membership organizations' perceived benefits and costs of participation and management capabilities to the partnership's progress toward a vision. Based on the qualitative data, six key governance and management characteristics are identified that separate the top performing partnerships from the lowest performing ones. We explore the implications of this research for future evaluations of public-private community health partnerships.     

Application of Lamendin's adult dental aging technique to a diverse skeletal sample

Lamendin et al. (1) proposed a technique to estimate age at death for adults by analyzing single-rooted teeth. They expressed age as a function of two factors: translucency of the tooth root and periodontosis (gingival regression). In their study, they analyzed 306 singled rooted teeth that were extracted at autopsy from 208 individuals of known age at death, all of whom were considered as having a French ancestry. Their sample consisted of 135 males, 73 females, 198 whites, and 10 blacks. The sample ranged in age from 22 to 90 years of age. By using a simple formulae (A = 0.18 x P + 0.42 x T + 25.53, where A = Age in years, P = Periodontosis height x 100/root height, and T = Transparency height x 100/root height), Lamendin et al. were able to estimate age at death with a mean error of +/- 10 years on their working sample and +/- 8.4 years on a forensic control sample. Lamendin found this technique to work well with a French population, but did not test it outside of that sample area. This study tests the accuracy of this adult aging technique on a more diverse skeletal population, the Terry Collection housed at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Our sample consists of 400 teeth from 94 black females, 72 white females, 98 black males, and 95 white males, ranging from 25 to 99 years. Lamendin's technique was applied to this sample to test its applicability to a population not of French origin. Providing results from a diverse skeletal population will aid in establishing the validity of this method to be used in forensic cases, its ideal purpose. Our results suggest that Lamendin's method estimates age fairly accurately outside of the French sample yielding a mean error of 8.2 years, standard deviation 6.9 years, and standard error of the mean 0.34 years. In addition, when ancestry and sex are accounted for, the mean errors are reduced for each group (black females, white females, black males, and white males). Lamendin et al. reported an inter-observer error of 9+/-1.8 and 10+/-2 sears from two independent observers. Forty teeth were randomly remeasured from the Terry Collection in order to assess an intra-observer error. From this retest, an intra-observer error of 6.5 years was detected.     

Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison

This paper reports on the performance of forensic document examiners (FDEs) in a signature comparison task that was designed to address the issue of expertise. The opinions of FDEs regarding 150 genuine and simulated questioned signatures were compared with a control group of non-examiners' opinions. On the question of expertise, results showed that FDEs were statistically better than the control group at accurately determining the genuineness or non-genuineness of questioned signatures. The FDE group made errors (by calling a genuine signature simulated or by calling a simulated signature genuine) in 3.4% of their opinions while 19.3% of the control group's opinions were erroneous. The FDE group gave significantly more inconclusive opinions than the control group. Analysis of FDEs' responses showed that more correct opinions were expressed regarding simulated signatures and more inconclusive opinions were made on genuine signatures. Further, when the complexity of a signature was taken into account, FDEs made more correct opinions on high complexity signatures than on signatures of lower complexity. There was a wide range of skill amongst FDEs and no significant relationship was found between the number of years FDEs had been practicing and their correct, inconclusive and error rates.     

Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions inLegal Interpretation

The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal interpretation are regarded as presumptions subject to default used to justify an interpretation. This approach can allow one to trace the different legal interpretive arguments back to their basic underlying presumptions, so that they can be compared, ordered, and assessed according to their defeasibility conditions. This approach allows one to understand the difference between various types of interpretive canons, and their strength in justifying an interpretation.     

An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence

Tribunals have come to depend increasingly on expertise for determining the facts in cases. However, current legal methods have proved problematic to work with. This paper argues that, as a special model of public understanding of science, assessing expertise should consider source credibility of expertise from internal aspects, including scientific validity and reliability, and external aspects involving the credibility of experts. Using the Carneades Argumentation System we show that the internal and the external aspects are mediated by the structure of the argument from expert opinion with its matching set of critical questions.