Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Judgment”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMed1992

Controlled trial using computerized feedback to improve physicians' diagnostic judgments.

The goal of this study was to test an innovative method to improve physicians' diagnostic judgments by integrating the use of a computer program (employing cognitive feedback to teach a clinical rule that predicts the probability of streptococcal pharyngitis), a traditional lecture, and periodic disease-prevalence reports. In a controlled trial using pre- and postintervention measures involving 885 patients, the authors compared the effects of the integrated method on the diagnostic judgments of seven experienced physicians at a university health service (from 1982 to 1985) with the effects of the lecture alone on the judgments of seven experienced physicians at a different university health service (1986 to 1987). The integrated method significantly improved the quality of the physicians' judgments as measured by calibration curves and Brier scores, and increased the level of agreement between the physicians' judgments and those made by the clinical prediction rule. The lecture alone produced less improvement in the quality of the physicians' judgments, and decreased the level of agreement with the rule. The authors conclude that this method, based on cognitive psychology, is a promising educational tool.

Computer-Assisted Instruction↗
PubMed1997

Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare listeners' subjective judgments of speech clarity via paired comparisons and category rating using stimulus conditions that varied in the relative spacing between stimulus items, producing either a wide or narrow range of performance. DESIGN: Subjective judgments of speech clarity were measured via paired comparisons and category rating in 12 normal-hearing (Experiment 1) and eight hearing-impaired adults (Experiment 2). Sentences processed by six band-pass filters that increased monotonically in Articulation Index (AI) estimates constituted the stimuli to be judged. Using subsets of three filters from the group of six, subjective judgments were additionally obtained for stimulus conditions in which the performance ranges were wide (large differences in AI) and narrow (small differences in AI). RESULTS: Speech clarity judgments obtained by paired comparisons and category rating were highly related to the AI estimates both for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. When the performance range was wide, both methods provided similar judgments for the normal-hearing subjects. For the hearing-impaired subjects, paired comparisons were more sensitive than category rating. When the performance range was narrow, paired comparisons were more sensitive than category rating in differentiating between filters for both groups of subjects. This difference was less obvious for the normal-hearing subjects when paired comparison data were converted to a scale comparable to the category ratings. Large between-subject variability was evident for the hearing-impaired subjects on the psychophysical scaling procedures, most notably for category rating. CONCLUSIONS: When judging the clarity among stimulus items where performance varied over a wide range, both category rating and paired comparisons provided comparable judgments for normal-hearing listeners. For conditions in which perceptual differences between stimulus items were restricted either by the choice of conditions or by the effects of sensorineural hearing loss, the method of paired comparisons was the more sensitive procedure.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Physicians' judgments of the risks of cardiac procedures. Differences between cardiologists and other internists.

OBJECTIVES: The authors compared judgments of the population risks of invasive cardiac procedures made by cardiologists and other internal medicine physicians. Our main hypotheses were that cardiologists' judgments would differ from those made by the other physicians and that cardiologists' judgments would be more accurate than those of other physicians. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of senior staff and physician-trainees at two teaching hospitals affiliated with a US medical school, Emergency Department physicians at a community hospital in the same metropolitan area, and senior staff and trainees at two teaching hospitals affiliated with a UK school. Judgments of the risks of severe morbidity and death due to Swan-Ganz catheterization, cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass grafting were assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen cardiologists judged the risks of severe morbidity due to all procedures and the risks of death due to all procedures except coronary artery bypass grafting to be significantly lower than did the 78 other internists. Cardiologists more frequently made accurate judgments of the rates of morbidity and death due to cardiac catheterization than did the other internists; other internists more frequently made accurate judgments for the rates of morbidity due to Swan-Ganz catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements about the risks of procedures may arise from a paucity of published data, or from an over-supply of confusing data.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗
PubMed1991

Judgment under conditions of uncertainty.

Judgment is an important aspect of nursing practice. This author provides an historical overview of judgment theory, research evidence of the heuristics and biases used by decision makers in their judgments, and a discussion of the fallibility of inferred knowledge--with an emphasis on overconfidence as a primary bias in judgment. The content includes also suggestions for improving judgments, and the implications of normative and non-normative judgment models for nursing.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed2001

An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment.

The long-standing rationalist tradition in moral psychology emphasizes the role of reason in moral judgment. A more recent trend places increased emphasis on emotion. Although both reason and emotion are likely to play important roles in moral judgment, relatively little is known about their neural correlates, the nature of their interaction, and the factors that modulate their respective behavioral influences in the context of moral judgment. In two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies using moral dilemmas as probes, we apply the methods of cognitive neuroscience to the study of moral judgment. We argue that moral dilemmas vary systematically in the extent to which they engage emotional processing and that these variations in emotional engagement influence moral judgment. These results may shed light on some puzzling patterns in moral judgment observed by contemporary philosophers.

Brain↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluating physicians' probabilistic judgments.

Physicians increasingly are challenged to make probabilistic judgments quantitatively. Their ability to make such judgments may be directly linked to the quality of care they provide. Many methods are available to evaluate these judgments. Graphic means of assessment include the calibration curve, covariance graph, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Statistical tools can measure the significance of departures from ideal calibration, and measure the area under ROC curve. Modeling the calibration curve using linear or logistic regression provides another method to assess probabilistic judgments, although these may be limited by failure of the data to meet the model's assumptions. Scoring rules provide indices of overall judgmental performance, although their reliability is difficult to gauge for small sample sizes. Decompositions of scoring rules separate judgmental performance into functional components. The authors provide preliminary guidelines for choosing methods for specific research in this area.

Decision Theory↗
PubMed2003

Surrogate decision-making: judgment standard preferences of older adults.

This qualitative study examines the judgment standard preferences of older adults related to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment. Thirty community dwelling adults over the age of 60 were presented with scenarios that depicted three decision-making standards, two of which are the predominant legal standards (substituted judgment and best interests), and a proposed third standard that allows the surrogate to consider the interests of the family in the decision-making process (best judgment). Half of the sample preferred substituted judgment, five preferred best interests, and ten chose best judgment. Selected cases are presented that demonstrate the themes associated with each judgment standard preference.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed2004

Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies.

Individual differences in aesthetic judgments were investigated by comparing quantitative group and individual performance models of the judgment processes. Aesthetic judgments of beauty over novel, formal, graphic patterns were collected from 34 non-artist college students using a two-step ranking-rating procedure. Their judgment processes were individually modelled using Judgment Analysis. The participants showed noted individual differences. Certain features of the stimulus material, which were considered to contribute to the picture's beauty by one participant, were used in an opposing fashion by another. A group model was derived based on the average ratings of the patterns' beauty. It was concluded that the group model was not an adequate representation of the present data, whereas the data revealed systematic judgment processes at the individual subject level.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Effects of life stress and dysphoria on complex judgments.

A sparse literature concerning the effects of stress on judgment and decision making has produced two tentative conclusions: (1) stress impairs judgment and (2) such impairment is often the result of the narrowing of a judge's focus of attention. While evidence supportive of these propositions exists, there have also been contradictory findings. This investigation attempted to address both of these issues. 98 undergraduate students completed a complex multiple-cue judgment task and were also assessed as to (a) their exposure to two potential sources of stress (life events and irrational thinking) and (b) the amount of personal dysphoria they were experiencing. Two indices of subjective distress, depression and state anxiety, were significantly related to poor judgmental performance. None of several indices of potential stressors confirmed a relationship, which suggests that possible external sources of stress do not negatively affect judgment unless they generate subjective distress at the time judgments are made. There was no support for the "narrowing" hypothesis.

Adult↗
PubMed1980

Lateral asymmetry in perceptual judgments of reading disabled, hyperactive and control children.

Three groups of 11 year old boys, classified as reading-disabled/hyperactive, hyperactive, and normal controls, made same-different judgments to pairs of verbal or visuospatial stimuli presented simultaneously to the right or left side of a fixation point. Two experimental paradigms were used, one emphasizing comparison judgments from memory, the other, new comparison judgments. Reading-disabled boys made more errors of judgment than did controls. All subjects exhibited faster reaction times for different judgments of pairs appearing in the left visual field. Reaction times were longer and errors more numerous for judgments made when two stimuli were presented simultaneously, one to each visual field. Differences in performance for the two halves of the visual field are attributed to memory storage effects for overlearned stimuli. The deficiency in interhemispheric comparisons is attributed to immaturity of the cerebral commissures. The reading-disabled group appears to encompass two subgroups with differing modes of information processing.

Child↗
PubMed2001

Higher order sequential effects in psychophysical judgments.

We found that the depth of sequential effects depends on the judgment task. An experiment with squares indicated that stimulus-response pairs up to two trials back were included in the judgment process when subjects were required to make category judgments of size, whereas only the immediately preceding event was incorporated when subjects were making magnitude estimations. In the case of category judgment, interactions between the current stimulus and prior stimuli as well as configural effects indicated that events one and two trials back meet an equivalent function in the judgment process and that these events may jointly operate in one trial. These findings can be explained by a class of models that assume that the position of preceding stimuli relative to the current stimulus is decisive in the judgment process. The multiple-standards model is a representative of this class according to which there are two types of standards: (1) the endpoints of the range as long-term standards and (2) traces of preceding stimuli as short-term standards.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Explicit and implicit processes in multicue judgment.

In two experiments, a multicue probability learning task was used to train participants in relating judgments to a criterion, on the basis of several cues that could or could not be relevant. The outcome feedback had 25% added noise to simulate real-world experience-based learning. Judgmental strategies acquired were measured by individual multiple linear regression analyses of a test phase (with no feedback) and were compared with self-ratings of cue relevance. In a third experiment, participants were instructed explicitly on cue relevance, with no training phase. The pattern of results suggested that both implicit and explicit cognitive processes influenced judgments and that they may have been sensitive to different task manipulations in the learning phase. On more complex tasks, despite weak explicit learning, explicit processes continued to influence judgments, producing a decrement in performance. These findings explain why studies of expert judgment often show only moderate levels of self-insight, since people have only partial access to the processes determining their judgments.

Cognition↗
PubMed2003

Judging confidence influences decision processing in comparative judgments.

Current theories of confidence in human judgment assume that confidence and the decision it is based on are inextricably tied to the same process (decisional locus theories) or that confidence processing begins only once the primary decision has been completed (postdecisional locus theories). In the absence of auxiliary assumptions, however, neither class of theory permits the judgment of confidence to affect primary decision processing. In the present study, we examined the effect of rendering confidence judgments on the properties of the decision process in a sensory discrimination task. An examination of the properties of the time taken to determine confidence (i.e., the time taken to render the judgment of confidence) revealed clear evidence of postdecisional confidence processing. Concomitantly, the requirement of confidence judgments was found to substantially increase decisional response times, suggesting that some confidence processing occurs during the primary decision process. We discuss the implications of these findings for contemporary models of confidence in human judgment.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Sex differences in duration judgments: a meta-analytic review.

We quantitatively reviewed human sex differences in the magnitude and variability of duration judgments. Data from 4,794 females and 4,688 males yielded 87 effect size estimates of magnitude and 28 of variability. The overall sex difference in duration judgment magnitude was small but statistically significant. It was moderated by whether study participants knew in advance (prospective paradigm) or only later (retrospective paradigm) that they would be required to judge duration. Although prospective judgments showed no overall sex effect, some levels of moderator variables showed a small but statistically significant effect. Retrospective judgments showed a larger subjective-to-objective duration ratio for females than for males, and several variables moderated this effect. Females' judgments also showed more intersubject variability than did males' judgments. Relative to males, females sustain attention to time more in the prospective paradigm and have better episodic memory in the retrospective paradigm.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

A comparison of the clinical judgment process in experienced registered nurses and student nurses.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical judgment process used by registered nurses identified as highly-skilled judgment-makers (HSJMs) and student nurses. Two areas of the clinical judgment process were explored: the type and number of cues elicited, and the judgment process. Thirteen students within a month of graduation, and 13 HSJMs participated in this study. For each participant, the judgment task was the initial assessment of a hospitalized patient. Each nurse reviewed the patient's Kardex, listened to the end-of-shift report and then assessed the patient as if this was the beginning of a workshift. This nurse-patient interview was tape recorded. Each nurse was then asked to review her thoughts as short segments of the nurse-patient interview were replayed. This was also tape recorded. These tapes were transcribed, and three nurse educators rated each transcript using a judgment process rating scale. Results of this study indicated the following: the registered nurses collected significantly more cues than the students, use of each cue type was not the same, students and HSJMs collected cues in the same proportion, and total scores on the rating scale could discriminate between the student and HSJM groups.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Do priming effects in perceptual identification and word judgment reflect different underlying mechanisms?

We examined priming of orthographically illegal nonwords in a perceptual identification task and a word judgment task in undergraduate participants. In perceptual identification, priming was significant and equivalent after structural or phonological encoding. In word judgment, priming was significant after phonological encoding but not structural encoding. In a follow-up experiment in older control participants and amnesic participants, priming in word judgment was not significant. Older control participants found the stimuli more difficult to pronounce than did undergraduate participants, and word judgment priming in undergaduate participants was significant only for the stimuli that were judged easy to pronounce. These findings demonstrate that priming in perceptual identification and word judgment extends to novel stimuli that are not linked to preexisting lexical or sublexical representations but that priming occurs at different levels in the two tasks: at a featural or orthographic level in perceptual identification and at a phonological level in word judgment.

Aged↗
PubMed1990

Clinical judgment analysis.

Judgement is central to the practice of medicine and occurs between making clinical observations and taking clinical decisions. Clinical judgment analysis has developed as a method of making statistically firm models of doctors' judgments. Computed models reveal the differential importance attached to items of clinical, social, or other data which are determinants of clinical decisions. These models can both reveal the causes of conflicts of judgment and may help resolve them in a way that unaided discussion cannot. Revealing experts' models to students speeds learning of diagnostic skills. Clinical judgment analysis offers a method of probing the judgments not just of students and doctors but also of patients who have shown systematic differences in their perceptions of risk and benefit. The power and relevance of clinical trials can be improved by the consistent application of judgment policies generated from both the trialists and those who will use their results.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Critical thinking, educational preparation, and development of moral judgment among selected groups of practicing nurses.

The focus of this descriptive study was the relationship between critical thinking, educational preparation, and level of moral judgment in 79 practicing nurses. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test was used to measure critical thinking; information on the participating nurses' educational preparation was obtained from a personal information sheet. Moral judgment was measured by Rest's Defining Issues Test. The hypothesis that critical thinking would be positively related to moral judgment was tested by Pearson product moment correlation; the obtained coefficient of .5326 was significant at the .001 level. The hypothesis that there would be a difference between professional and technical nurses' moral judgments was tested through a one-way analysis of variance. The F ratio (F [1,77] = 9.6) was significant beyond the .01 level. Data also supported the hypothesis that critical thinking and educational preparation would predict greater variance in moral judgment than either variable alone, which was tested through multiple regression analysis (F [2,75] = 18.3, p = .01). Critical thinking and education together accounted for 32.9 percent of the variance in moral judgment. Implications of the findings are discussed for nursing research, practice, and education.

Adult↗