Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • Research Outputs
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Medicine
  3. Faculty of Medicine
  4. What You Find Depends on How You Measure It: Reactivity of Response Scales Measuring Predecisional Information Distortion in Medical Diagnosis
 
  • Details
What You Find Depends on How You Measure It: Reactivity of Response Scales Measuring Predecisional Information Distortion in Medical Diagnosis
File(s)
Nurek Kostopoulou 2016.pdf (1.25 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Nurek, M
Kostopoulou, O
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
“Predecisional information distortion” occurs when decision makers evaluate new information in a way that is biased towards their leading option. The phenomenon is well established, as is the method typically used to measure it, termed “stepwise evolution of preference” (SEP). An inadequacy of this method has recently come to the fore: it measures distortion as the total advantage afforded a leading option over its competitor, and therefore it cannot differentiate between distortion to strengthen a leading option (“proleader” distortion) and distortion to weaken a trailing option (“antitrailer” distortion). To address this, recent research introduced new response scales to SEP. We explore whether and how these new response scales might influence the very proleader and antitrailer processes that they were designed to capture (“reactivity”). We used the SEP method with concurrent verbal reporting: fifty family physicians verbalized their thoughts as they evaluated patient symptoms and signs (“cues”) in relation to two competing diagnostic hypotheses. Twenty-five physicians evaluated each cue using the response scale traditional to SEP (a single response scale, returning a single measure of distortion); the other twenty-five did so using the response scales introduced in recent studies (two separate response scales, returning two separate measures of distortion: proleader and antitrailer). We measured proleader and antitrailer processes in verbalizations, and compared verbalizations in the single-scale and separate-scales groups. Response scales did not appear to affect proleader processes: the two groups of physicians were equally likely to bolster their leading diagnosis verbally. Response scales did, however, appear to affect antitrailer processes: the two groups denigrated their trailing diagnosis verbally to differing degrees. Our findings suggest that the response scales used to measure information distortion might influence its constituent processes, limiting their generalizability across and beyond experimental studies.
Date Issued
2016-09-14
Date Acceptance
2016-08-24
Citation
PLOS One, 2016, 11 (9)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/40670
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162562
ISSN
1932-6203
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Journal / Book Title
PLOS One
Volume
11
Issue
9
Copyright Statement
© 2016 Nurek, Kostopoulou. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
License URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Subjects
General Science & Technology
MD Multidisciplinary
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
e0162562
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback