Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 9067869

Decision-making task complexity: model development and initial testing.

Abstract

Preparing skilled decision-makers requires an understanding of the decision-making tasks nurses face. This article presents the development and initial testing of a model of decision-making task complexity in nursing. The Decision-Making Task Complexity Model has its roots in Newell and Simon's (1972) Information Processing Theory. The Model includes two components, content and context, along with five characteristics in each component. The content component of the model was initially tested using a single sample repeated measures design. Case study examples of a weaning task in critical care were developed to include all combinations of the four independent variables: irrelevance, ambiguity, conflict, and change. Forty-one registered critical care nurses rated each case study example on a scale from 1 (least complex) to 7 (most complex). Results indicated that when conflict was manipulated the ratings were consistently higher. Implications for nursing education and the development of decision-making skills are described.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M L Lewis. 1997. Decision-making task complexity: model development and initial testing.. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19970301-06

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect on peer review of asking reviewers to have their identity revealed to the authors of the paper. DESIGN: Randomised trial. Consecutive eligible papers were sent to two reviewers who were randomised to have their identity revealed to the authors or to remain anonymous. Editors and authors were blind to the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of the reviews was independently rated by two editors and the corresponding author using a validated instrument. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the recommendation regarding publication. A questionnaire survey was undertaken of the authors of a cohort of manuscripts submitted for publication to find out their views on open peer review. RESULTS: Two editors' assessments were obtained for 113 out of 125 manuscripts, and the corresponding author's assessment was obtained for 105. Reviewers randomised to be asked to be identified were 12% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 24%) more likely to decline to review than reviewers randomised to remain anonymous (35% v 23%). There was no significant difference in quality (scored on a scale of 1 to 5) between anonymous reviewers (3.06 (SD 0.72)) and identified reviewers (3.09 (0.68)) (P=0.68, 95% confidence interval for difference - 0.19 to 0.12), and no significant difference in the recommendation regarding publication or time taken to review the paper. The editors' quality score for reviews (3.05 (SD 0.70)) was significantly higher than that of authors (2.90 (0.87)) (P<0.005, 95%confidence interval for difference - 0.26 to - 0.03). Most authors were in favour of open peer review. CONCLUSIONS: Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.

Decision Making