| (March Newsletter 2003 - 4) Reliability measures test against itself A test is also reliable if it produces similar results in different persons with similar traits. Obviously, this kind of reliability is more important than whether a test measures traits in a person multiple times. Reliability studies are more easily tested than validity. Generally speaking, testing reliability means measuring the test, instrument, or procedure against another test, instrument, or procedure. There are numerous methods of testing reliability and an advocate should be familiar with the method of testing reliability, as well as the statistical outcome. Reliability will inherently be greater than validity. This is to say, it is easier to construct a test, instrument, or procedure to perform consistently against itself than to have the test, instrument, or procedure �measure up to� a known standard. Further, since reliability studies measure a test�s performance against itself, it is predic-ted that there would be a greater correlation than when the test is being measured against a different test. Application to general population The degree to which a test may be generalized is largely a function of the size of the standardization popu-lations. When a test is standardized on a large, diverse population, it is more generalizable than if standardized on a small, homogenous population. Advocate must make convincing case for use of testimony Scientific studies on reliability and validity tend to seem impenetrable and arcane. Ultimately, the advo-cate�s job is to translate the abstruse concepts of science into understandable and compelling concepts for the finder of fact. In the Matter of: Carlton County District Court Case No. C6-002-1638 Citizens For Reform reported on the above-captioned matter in the February issue on the �Records of Minnesota Sexual Psychopathic Persons Treatment Center Moose Lake.� Numerous residents were given notices by the MSOP/DHS informing them that their clinical/medical records were the subjects of a subpoena from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Numerous residents filed motions with the Court requesting that the subpoena be quashed or modified. On January 13, 2003, residents received another DHS letter stating that on December 23, Judge Dale Wolf of the Carlton County District Court, issued an order that requires the MSOP to submit the records to the Court for an in-camera review, so that the Court can determine which records will be released to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The following, is a modification of the subpoena that residents motioned for. On January 16, 2003, two residents of the MSOP filed motions requesting the Carlton County Judge to dismiss the Attorney General�s Office as the Defendant(s) counsel for the following reasons: 1. The Minnesota Attorney General�s Office poses a significant legal conflict of interest in the matter of reviewing the records of patients/residents of the MSOP. 2. The Minnesota Attorney General�s Office has directly participated in numerous civil commitment cases that have resulted in the detainment of several individuals of the MSOP. 3. In light of United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Case No. 02-2629MN, where the absence of jury trials of those committed to the MSOP is now under review, access to patient/resident files by the Attorney General�s Office poses a significant legal conflict of interest. 4. Because of the significant legal conflict of interest, Petitioner requests that Defendant(s) find indepen- dent counsel. Citizens For Reform believes that the motion has merit and should be considered; however, no decision has been reached on this motion as of yet. Members of Citizens For Reform have difficulty understanding why we as citizens are responsible for the Defense of the MSOP. The MSOP has been irresponsible for their actions for several years now, which has come to light through several sources, such as the Hospital Review Board, the Residents� Advisory Council, etc. Several suits in various courts have been filed against them, and we as citi-zens are flipping the bill to pay the Attorney General�s Office to defend them, why? If their unprofessional actions have created a legal hardship for them, why should we as citizens pay to defend their unprofessional conduct? Another serious issue was raised by one of the residents who recently motioned the Court for the removal of the Attorney General�s Office when he requested copies of those documents that implied that he had engag-ed in �sexually explicit phone communication with a minor, or was in the possession of child pornography.� In a letter dated January 16, 2003, written to this individual by Assistant Attorney General Michael Burns, it states, in part, as follows: �You also requested a copy of documents that the Program shared with the Attorney General�s Office. Again, the Human Services Division of the Attorney General�s Office represents the Program in legal matters. Since providing you with the information that you requested might reveal privileged attorney-client informa-tion, this request must be denied. Also, since the Human Services Division of the Attorney General�s Office is considered part of DHS for data practices purposes, any information shared with us is not properly character-ized as having been released or disclosed to those outside the facility. Accordingly, there is no requirement that we provide you with the information you requested.� Michael E. Burns, Asst. Atty. General The MSOP resident, who requested the information, responded to Asst. Atty. Gen. Burns�s letter as follows: �I believe that your office poses a significant legal conflict of interest due to the fact that certain depart-ments of your law firm have directly participated in the civil commitment of several residents� of the MSOP, including myself. Giving your office access to my private data, due to an attorney-client relationship with the MSOP/DHS, is troubling to say the least. I have motioned the Court for the removal of the Attorney General�s Office as counsel for the Defendant(s). |
|