A Comparison of Three Weight-of-Evidence Approaches for Integrating Sediment Contamination Data within and Across Lines of Evidence

Abstract

Multiple lines of evidence (LOE) are often considered when examining the potential impact of contaminated sediment. Three strategies are explored for combining information within and/or among different LOE. One technique uses a multivariate strategy for clustering sites into groups of similar impact. A second method employs meta-analysis to pool empirically derived P-values. The third method uses a quantitative estimation of probability derived from odds ratios. These three strategies are compared with respect to a set of data describing reference conditions and a contaminated area in the Great Lakes. Common themes in these three strategies include the critical issue of defining an appropriate set of reference/control conditions, the definition of impact as a significant departure from the normal variation observed in the reference conditions, and the use of distance from the reference distribution to define any of the effect measures. Reasons for differences in results between the three approaches are explored and strategies for improving the approaches are suggested.

Keywords:

• Bayesian statistics
• weight-of-evidence
• risk
• multivariate statistics
• meta-analysis.