FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2039846447> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2039846447 endingPage "501" @default.
• W2039846447 startingPage "486" @default.
• W2039846447 abstract "MEDICAL DECISIONS IN PERSPECTIVE: APPUED RESEARCH IN COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY ARTHUR S. ELSTEIN* MARGARET M. HOLMES* MICHAEL M. RAVITCH* DAVID R. ROVNERA GERALD B. HOLZMAN,% and MARILYN L. ROTHERT* Medical decisions claim the attention ofthose outside the scientific and medical communities as well as oftheir members. The general pubUc has an abiding concern in the personal and economic consequences ofmedical decisions. Researchers are engaged in analyzing medical decisions and determining the information necessary for action under uncertainty and the impact of high technology on decision making. For these reasons , clinical decision making has become a major area for psychological investigation. The rapid growth of research in clinical decision making has led to interest in improved methods and frameworks for data analysis. The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate the primary theories and methods employed in contemporary psychological research on clinical decision making and to compare these approaches with two naturalistic methods of research in this field, chart audit and direct observation. The findings from this body of research wUl not be summarized here since several recent reviews are readUy avaUable [1-4]. Psychological research on medical decision making has generally been experimental or controlled research. Subjects respond to a carefully designed or selected medical problem, either a written or simulated case in an experimental setting. This design results in highly reproducible, reliable information but is subject to question aboutthe relationship ofthese results to the real world. More naturaUstic studies, relying on patient charts or observation in clinical settings, are clearly related to die real world but may produce results that are so much a function of time and Work supported in part by die National Library of Medicine grant LM-03396 and Biomedical Research Support grant SO7RR05656-13 to Michigan State University. Office of Medical Education Research and Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. tDepartment of Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. ^Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.© 1983 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0031-5982/83/2603-0343$01.00 486 J Arthur S. Ebtein, Margaret Af. Holmes, et al. * Medical Decisions in Perspective setting that questions of generalizability arise once again. This paper wiU discuss the advantages and limitations of experimental versus naturalistic design as well as the research questions that are characteristic ofthree major psychological theories. Cognitive Theories in Clinical Research The major cognitive theories employed in research on clinical reasoning are information-processing psychology, social judgment theory, and decision theory. The information-processing view of clinical reasoning aims to characterize the reasoning processes by recording and analyzing the steps and thoughts of clinicians as they attempt to solve clinical problems. The goal is to describe the ongoing processes in terms of basic psychological elements and principles. Socialjudgment theory, on the other hand, deals statistically with correlations between original cues and final outcome. The thought processes are regarded as a black box, and linear correlations are used to depict the degree to which each cue enters into the final judgment. Decision analysis approaches the solution of clinical problems from the standpoint of risky choice under uncertainty. The decision problem is carefully structured and bounded. The approach requires one to be explicit and quantitative. It assumes that, given a choice, the physician will act rationally to maximize the best outcome for the most patients. Each approach provides an analytic perspective which suggests questions to be asked and the kind of data best suited to answer these questions . In general, both information processing and social judgment theory rely on descriptive data. These studies aim to identify the organization of factual knowledge and inference rules required for effective clinical judgment [5, 6] or to analyze the determinants of decisions in situations where competent decision makers differ in their recommendations for the diagnostic workup or management of a particular condition [7, 8]. Studies in the information-processing tradition have analyzed expert performance on problems where consensus can be obtained in order to specify the points to be emphasized in instructional materials and the knowledge base or practical skills students should acquire [9, 10]. These studies assume that better understanding of the thought processes..." @default.
• W2039846447 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2039846447 creator A5037642351 @default.
• W2039846447 creator A5061137582 @default.
• W2039846447 creator A5065820073 @default.
• W2039846447 creator A5066064569 @default.
• W2039846447 creator A5069064489 @default.
• W2039846447 creator A5071099858 @default.
• W2039846447 date "1983-01-01" @default.
• W2039846447 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2039846447 title "Medical Decisions in Perspective: Applied Research in Cognitive Psychology" @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1438120728 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1509177569 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1519240012 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1554701668 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W158727920 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W186137233 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1870952735 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1969742907 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1974157363 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1980054641 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1981890497 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W1988907609 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2011356264 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2022685398 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2026187244 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2035729374 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2041656211 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2049970858 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2054489687 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2060642394 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2067234119 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2078931659 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2080405943 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2082490592 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2083565660 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2096452841 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2096748032 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2110293626 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2121362411 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2150209580 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2160630870 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2164558494 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2172131625 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2178782964 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2313454870 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2333196491 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2397108545 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2403670652 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W2404468159 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W592124660 @default.
• W2039846447 cites W644080902 @default.
• W2039846447 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1983.0068" @default.
• W2039846447 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6866713" @default.
• W2039846447 hasPublicationYear "1983" @default.
• W2039846447 type Work @default.
• W2039846447 sameAs 2039846447 @default.
• W2039846447 citedByCount "28" @default.
• W2039846447 countsByYear W20398464472012 @default.
• W2039846447 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2039846447 hasAuthorship W2039846447A5037642351 @default.
• W2039846447 hasAuthorship W2039846447A5061137582 @default.
• W2039846447 hasAuthorship W2039846447A5065820073 @default.
• W2039846447 hasAuthorship W2039846447A5066064569 @default.
• W2039846447 hasAuthorship W2039846447A5069064489 @default.
• W2039846447 hasAuthorship W2039846447A5071099858 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C106977388 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C188255311 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C2983241795 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C43236755 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConceptScore W2039846447C106977388 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConceptScore W2039846447C111472728 @default.
• W2039846447 hasConceptScore W2039846447C118552586 @default.

• next