Literature DB >> 3294554

Primacy effects in clinical judgments of contingency.

S P Curley1, M J Young, M J Kingry, J F Yates.   

Abstract

In contingency judgment a primacy effect exists when a conclusion about the relationship between clinical variables is inordinately influenced by cases seen earlier rather than later in a presentation sequence. In this study, medical and nursing trainees evidenced this behavior in a hypothetical clinical judgment situation. The behavior was tied to an attention decrement explanation, by which inattention to the later-presented cases leads to inaccurate recall of the relative frequencies of observed cases, which in turn induces a misjudgment of a disease-finding contingency. An explicit intervention based on this hypothesis, forcing attention to later cases by warning that recall of the case frequencies would be required, was effective in reducing primacy effects among medical students. A related, but less explicit, intervention was also tried. This intervention did not significantly reduce primacy effects among nursing students, but was somewhat effective among general undergraduate students performing a non-clinical contingency judgment task.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3294554     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  5 in total

1.  Re-engineering the process of surgical informed consent.

Authors:  M M Dierks; D Z Sands; C Safran
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  1999

2.  Recency and primacy in causal judgments: effects of probe question and context switch on latent inhibition and extinction.

Authors:  Steven Glautier
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-09

3.  Insights into some aspects of clinical education--I. Clinical practice.

Authors:  J I Balla
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.401

4.  Subjective Numeracy and the Influence of Order and Amount of Audible Information on Perceived Medication Value.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Marilyn Stolar; Sarah Swift; Richard L Street; Harjinder Chowdhary; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-07-10       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Explainable recommendation: when design meets trust calibration.

Authors:  Mohammad Naiseh; Dena Al-Thani; Nan Jiang; Raian Ali
Journal:  World Wide Web       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 2.716

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.