Analyzing the Lancet numbers

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on October 18, 2006 at 11:15 am

This is probably the best piece I’ve seen on those questionable Lancet numbers yet. Steven Moore checks out the methodology and finds it extremely faulty:

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don’t get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone’s measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%–not 1200%.

The group–associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health–employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in “clusters” within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey,” the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn’t survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.’s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711–almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

Here are Moore’s credentials, BTW:

Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to 2006.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Hat tip: ST reader Severian

Prior:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Responses to “Analyzing the Lancet numbers”

Comments

  1. Baklava says:

    ST, The Iraq Body Count group themselves shred the 655,000 number.

  2. Lorica says:

    The author of this study is running for Congress on the Democratic ticket???

    LINK

    NOOOOOOOOOO This study isn’t biased is it??? What a frickin’ lowlife. Talk about a lack of full disclosure. – Lorica

  3. Tim Lambert says:

    Moore would fail first year statistics with that rubbish. Here’s why.

  4. Severian says:

    That’s a pretty pathetic attempt at a fisking.

  5. vatar says:

    Here is my analysis of the older Lancet report, I haven’t looked at the new one. This was originally posted at LINK

    The country was divided into what was supposed to be 33 relatively equal clusters, each being approximately 739,000 people, or 1/33 of Iraq’s population. They then surveyed 30 households in each cluster and “assumed that every household had seven individuals” (not sure where they got that assumption, they didn’t say). However, my claim is that the 33 clusters were far from the norm of what should have been selected as a random sample. Here are some cities, populations, and cluster assignments:

    Sulaymaniya – 1,100,000 – 3 clusters
    Salah ad Din – 1,099,000 – 3 clusters
    Karbala – 1,047,000 – 3 clusters
    Missan – 685,000 – 3 clusters

    I’m starting to see a pattern here. These clusters don’t seem to be approximately 739,000 people each. I have highlighted Karbala, because I have heard the name in the news alot, and it seems to be a particularly violent place. Now let’s continue.

    Arbil – 1,100,000 – 0 clusters

    Eh? What is unique about Arbil that would cause them to get 0 clusters? Could it be that they are a Kurdish city in northern Iraq, are US friendly, and have had very few casualties during the war? In fact, I believe that is the case. They were intentionally left out of the sample because it would significantly lower the average number of people killed. The authors of this survey instead cherry-picked the most violent places and then tried to extrapolate this data over the whole of the Iraqi population.

  6. NC Cop says:

    I think they have Dr. Evil doing their number crunching….

    “It’s one hundred billlllllllllllllllion people….”

  7. Drewsmom says:

    Bull hockey !!!!:)>-