PURPOSE: To what extent response mode and experience affect the assessment of disability was investigated. METHOD: An experiment was conducted in which 34 medical doctors (17 inexperienced and 15 experienced) were required to assess disability of a videotaped client. Participants either gave a probability assessment after each piece of information or only after all information had been processed (step-by-step, SBS, or end-of-sequence, EOS). They were furthermore required to indicate how confident they were of their judgement and which information was most important for their judgement. RESULTS: Neither response mode nor experience affected the assessment of disability. Only experienced doctors changed their judgement after seeing the video as compared to their judgement after reading the file. Even though all doctors became more confident after seeing the video, this increase was stronger for experienced than inexperienced doctors. Experienced doctors more often mentioned limitations as the basis for their judgements and, to a lesser degree, client's motivation to return to work than inexperienced doctors. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that assessments of disability are largely based on the initial representation that is formed after reading the file. The main pitfall is that the final representation is based on general beliefs rather than on actual client information. For training and support this would mean that doctors should be made aware of the extent to which their assessment is anchored in the case at hand.
PURPOSE: To what extent response mode and experience affect the assessment of disability was investigated. METHOD: An experiment was conducted in which 34 medical doctors (17 inexperienced and 15 experienced) were required to assess disability of a videotaped client. Participants either gave a probability assessment after each piece of information or only after all information had been processed (step-by-step, SBS, or end-of-sequence, EOS). They were furthermore required to indicate how confident they were of their judgement and which information was most important for their judgement. RESULTS: Neither response mode nor experience affected the assessment of disability. Only experienced doctors changed their judgement after seeing the video as compared to their judgement after reading the file. Even though all doctors became more confident after seeing the video, this increase was stronger for experienced than inexperienced doctors. Experienced doctors more often mentioned limitations as the basis for their judgements and, to a lesser degree, client's motivation to return to work than inexperienced doctors. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that assessments of disability are largely based on the initial representation that is formed after reading the file. The main pitfall is that the final representation is based on general beliefs rather than on actual client information. For training and support this would mean that doctors should be made aware of the extent to which their assessment is anchored in the case at hand.
Authors: Christina Lindholm; Britt Arrelöv; Gunnar Nilsson; Anna Löfgren; Elin Hinas; Ylva Skånér; Anna Ekmer; Kristina Alexanderson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-12-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Feico Zwerver; Antonius J M Schellart; Johannes R Anema; Kathelijne C Rammeloo; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Romy Steenbeek; Antonius Jm Schellart; Henny Mulders; Johannes R Anema; Herman Kroneman; Jan Besseling Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David Samoocha; David J Bruinvels; Johannes R Anema; Romy Steenbeek; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2009-05-10 Impact factor: 2.796