PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Katarina Guttmannova

Publications and source records attributed to Katarina Guttmannova.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Confidence judgments by humans and rhesus monkeys.

Researchers have begun to evaluate animals' metacognitive capacities. Continuing this evaluation, the present authors asked whether monkeys could use the analog of a confidence-rating scale to judge retrospectively their accuracy in a psychophysical discrimination. Monkeys and human participants classified stimuli as dense or sparse without feedback. Then, they made a secondary confidence judgment by choosing responses that risked different levels of timeout but could earn different levels of reward. Human participants were instructed to use these responses to express levels of confidence. They used 2- and 3-level confidence-rating scales appropriately. Monkeys used the 2-level scale appropriately--especially one who performed almost identically to humans. Neither monkey used the 3-level scale as the humans did. These studies place humans and animals for the first time in the identical risk-taking situation that collects declarative confidence judgments from humans. They demonstrate the first retrospective reports of uncertainty by non-human primates while also suggesting their limits in this area.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

An examination of the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in two high-risk samples.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was examined by employing confirmatory factor analytic techniques to data from two samples collected 1998-1999: college students (n = 465) and court-referred, substance use treatment outpatients (clinical sample; n = 135). Despite the fact that the AUDIT was originally designed as a three-factor measure (consumption, dependence, and consequences), previous studies have lent support to one- and two-factor models. The results of this study support a two-factor model (alcohol consumption and dependence/consequences) in both samples. As further evidence that the two-factor model is appropriate, a psychometric evaluation suggested that the AUDIT generated reliable scores in both groups when used as either a one- or two-factor measure, but not when three scores are derived in the student sample.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

An error by any other name.

Recent reports from the Institute of Medicine and other sources have shown that far too many avoidable medical errors occur; other research has shown a strong association between patient outcomes and characteristics of nursing staff. The authors of this paper present findings from multimethod research conducted over three years in 29 small rural hospitals in nine Western states. They examined the organizational processes used to recognize medical errors and assign responsibility for them to resolve patient-safety issues. The research comprises seven substudies that used surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and case studies to gather data from nurses, physicians, administrators, pharmacists, and other health care workers.Generally, participants responded positively to questions about an institution's receptivity to communicating about errors and agreed on the most common kinds of errors that occur. But other data suggest that providers' understanding of patient safety is heavily conditioned by preconceived notions of what constitutes an error and of professional roles. Participants' analyses of case studies showed that they don't agree on what constitutes error or what kinds of events should be reported. And in one substudy, even when there was overwhelming agreement among participants (97%) that an error had occurred, only 64% would disclose the error to the patient affected. Physicians, administrators, and nurses tended to perceive patient safety as primarily a nursing responsibility. Only 22% of respondents to one survey said that physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and administrators should share responsibility equally for patient safety. The research was not designed to answer specific questions about the recruitment and retention of nurses, but the data collected suggest that institutional processes used to identify errors, assign responsibility for them, and resolve patient-safety issues may have unintended, harmful effects on nurse recruitment and retention. The authors propose that "a systems approach to patient safety" be adopted, one in which responsibility for safety is shared by all members of the health care team.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗