SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “JUDGMENT”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1997

Identifying the authoritative judgments of stuttering: comparisons of self-judgments and observer judgments.

Reliable and accurate stuttering measurement depends on the existence of unambiguous descriptions or exemplars of stuttered and nonstuttered speech. The development of clinically meaningful and useful exemplars, in turn, requires determining whether persons who stutter judge the same speech to be stuttered that other observers judge to be stuttered. The purpose of these experiments, therefore, was to compare stuttering judgements from several sources: 15 adults who stutter, judging their own spontaneous speech; the same adults who stutter, judging each other's speech; and a panel of 10 authorities on stuttering research and treatment. Judgments were mode under several conditions, including self-judgments made while the speaker was talking and self- and other-judgements made from recordings in continuous and interval formats. Results showed substantial differences in stuttering judgments across speakers, judges, and judgment conditions, but across-task comparisons were complicated by low self-agreement for many judges. Some intervals were judged consistently by all judges to be Stuttered or Nonstuttered, across multiple conditions, but many other intervals were either not assigned replicable judgments or were consistently judged to be Nonstuttered by the speaker who had produced them but were not assigned consistent judgments by other judges. The implications of these findings for stuttering measurement are considered.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Use of expert judgment in exposure assessment: part 2. Calibration of expert judgments about personal exposures to benzene.

The recent movement of regulatory agencies toward probabilistic analyses of human health and environmental risks has focused greater attention on the quality of the estimates of variability and uncertainty that underlie them. Of particular concern is how uncertainty--a measure of what is not known--is characterized, as uncertainty can play an influential role in analyses of the need for regulatory controls or in estimates of the economic value of additional research. This paper reports the second phase of a study, conducted as an element of the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS), to obtain and calibrate exposure assessment experts judgments about uncertainty in residential ambient, residential indoor, and personal air benzene concentrations experienced by the nonsmoking, nonoccupationally exposed population in U.S. EPA's Region V. Subjective judgments (i.e., the median, interquartile range, and 90% confidence interval) about the means and 90th percentiles of each of the benzene distributions were elicited from the seven experts participating in the study. The calibration or quality of the experts' judgments was assessed by comparing them to the actual measurements from the NHEXAS Region V study using graphical techniques, a quadratic scoring rule, and surprise and interquartile indices. The results from both quantitative scoring methods suggested that, considered collectively, the experts' judgments were relatively well calibrated although on balance, underconfident. The calibration of individual expert judgments appeared variable, highlighting potential pitfalls in reliance on individual experts. In a surprising finding, the experts' judgments about the 90th percentiles of the benzene distributions were better calibrated than their predictions about the means; the experts tended to be overconfident in their ability to predict the means. This paper is also one of the first calibration studies to demonstrate the importance of taking into account intraexpert correlation on the statistical significance of the findings. When the judgments were assumed to be independent, analysis of the surprise and interquartile indices found evidence of poor calibration (P<0.05). However, when the intraexpert correlation in the study was taken into account, these findings were no longer statistically significant. The analysis further found that the experts' judgments scored better than estimates of Region V benzene concentrations simply drawn from earlier studies of ambient, indoor and personal benzene levels in other U.S. cities. These results suggest the value of careful elicitation of expert judgments in characterizing exposures in probabilistic form. Additional calibration studies need to be undertaken to corroborate and extend these findings.

Air Pollution, Indoor↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Nurses' judgment as they care for persons who exhibit impaired judgment: a phenomenological study.

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to discover the process by which psychiatric nurses make judgments as they care for persons who exhibit impaired judgment. Data were collected from six experienced psychiatric nurses in a private room and were audiotaped. These data were analyzed using Spiegelberg's (1976) phenomenological method. The data yielded an overarching theme: all the nurses presented judgment as a personal responsibility. Within this overarching theme, were four major themes: (1) closeness to the clinical data; (2) critical reflection; (3) respect for one's knowledge and ignorance; and (4) existential nature of judgment. Categories within theme (1) closeness to the clinical data were nurse as knower and focus on the patient; within theme (2), critical reflection were experience and understanding; within theme (3), respect for one's knowledge and ignorance were self-consciousness and expectation of self; and within theme (4), existential nature of judgment were alone facing the unknown and "Eureka! I've got it!" Essentially, judgment occurred privately within the mind of the nurse, making it both the creation and responsibility of the nurse. For these nurses judgment was the pivotal event in nursing inquiry beginning in the desire to know, proceeding through understanding and presentation of a nursing problem and then determining the question, "What is it?" in a "Eureka!" moment. With this experience of "I've got it!" the nurse crossed from the unknown to the known. Judgment which began in the desire to know began again with a new question.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2006

Does momentary accessibility influence metacomprehension judgments? The influence of study-judgment lags on accessibility effects.

In two experiments, we investigated momentary accessibility as a basis for metacomprehension judgments. Momentary accessibility has been cited as a major contributor to these judgments, yet the only previous investigation on the topic used judgments that were delayed a day after study, which have not been used in any other studies in the field and may be necessary for demonstrating accessibility-based effects. As expected, Experiment 1 demonstrated that the time between study and judgments moderates accessibility effects, with the relationship between judgments and access measures being substantially greater for delayed than for immediate judgments. Experiment 2 ruled out a plausible artifactual interpretation for accessibility effects on delayed judgments. In the discussion, we explore why study-judgment lags moderate accessibility effects.

Comprehension↗

PubMed2002

Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: analyses of individual judgments.

Aesthetic judgments were investigated using a combined nomothetic and idiographic approach. Participants judged novel graphic patterns with respect to their own personal definitions of "beauty." Judgment analysis was employed to derive individual case models of judgment strategies as well as a group model. As predicted, symmetry had the highest correlations with aesthetic judgments of beauty. Stimulus complexity was the second-highest correlate of a positive evaluation. Thus, there was agreement at the group level. The judgment analyses, however, indicated substantial individual differences. These included use of symmetry or complexity cues that were contrary to the main group use, e.g., a few participants considered nonsymmetric patterns more beautiful. These findings suggest that exclusive consideration of the group model would have leveled the individual differences and been misleading. The group model is significant; however, the individual judgment analyses represent individual patterns of judgment in a notedly more accurate way.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Effects of Judgment on Memory: Experiments in Recognition Bias and Process Dissociation in a Professional Judgment Task

Three experiments investigated post-judgment memory bias in a professional task for which the judge is liable. The experimental setting replicates a task in which a subordinate documents evidence after making a judgment, and a reviewer affirms or overrules the judgment from evidence the subordinate documents. This setting is common, for example, in auditing firms, law firms, and investment banking houses. The results lead to three findings. First, subordinates' judgments interact with evidence in memory to bias their post-judgment recognition of the evidence they will document in evidence files. Second, subordinate memory performance is consistent with the predictions of process dissociation: Conscious recollection is lower when attention is divided, but unconscious familiarity is invariant to attention manipulations. Third, the incomplete evidence sets that subordinates recognize and document systematically bias reviewers' judgments in the direction of subordinates' judgments.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1999

Nurses' judgments regarding seclusion and restraint of psychiatric patients: a social judgment analysis.

Clinical judgment of psychiatric nurses was investigated using judgment analysis within the framework of social judgment theory. Nine nurses at a short-term psychiatric care facility made recommendations concerning restraint and seclusion for 80 patients described on paper in terms of 17 characteristics (cues). Nurses generally favored close observation of patients over seclusion and restraint, and information about current behavior and functioning had more impact on nurses' judgments than did patient history. Nurses had good insight into the nature of their own judgments. However, individual differences in cue utilization and inconsistency in strategy usage led to disagreement among nurses about specific recommendations for particular patients. No one patient received identical recommendations from all nurses, and nurses agreed with each other on specific recommendations only about a third of the time. The lack of agreement has implications for development of staff training programs and further research on the clinical judgment processes of nurses.

Cues↗

PubMed1984

Clinical judgment in rheumatoid arthritis. III. British rheumatologists' judgments of 'change in response to therapy'.

A realistic analysis of the criteria used by rheumatologists in evaluating the progress of patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis must be based on actual clinical judgments rather than on expressed opinions. A randomly selected 15% sample of British rheumatologists (48) recorded judgements on the progress of 50 'paper' patients, based on data taken from actual patients participating in clinical trials. The rheumatologists differed markedly in their assessments of the progress of disease, with serious disagreements even when only 'clinically important' changes were considered. Some clinicians showed little consistency in their judgments of duplicate cases. Multiple regression analysis of the patient data in relation to the disease assessments provided a model of each clinician's judgment policy. These judgment policy models showed that the differences in clinical assessment were greater than could be explained by the inconsistent application of similar assessment policies, and were a consequence also of differences in the underlying judgment policies themselves. Judgments related more closely to changes in ESR and other process measures than to changes in functional ability.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗

PubMed2000

Causal judgment from contingency information: relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgment.

In two experiments, participants made causal judgments from contingency information for problems with different objective contingencies. After the judgment task, the participants reported how their judgments had changed following each type of contingency information. Some reported idiosyncratic tendencies--in other words, tendencies contrary to those expected under associative-learning and normative rule induction models of contingency judgment. These idiosyncratic reports tended to be better predictors of the judgments of those who made them than did the models. The results are consistent with the view that causal judgment from contingency information is made, at least in part, by deliberative use of acquired and sometimes idiosyncratic notions of evidential value, the outcomes of which tend, in aggregate, to be highly correlated with the outcomes of normative procedures.

Adult↗

PubMed1993

Judgmental overshadowing: further evidence of cue interaction in contingency judgment.

We investigated a phenomenon called judgmental overshadowing. Subjects predicted whether each of several patients had a disease on the basis of whether or not the patient had each of two symptoms. For all the subjects, the presence of the disease was moderately contingent on the presence of one of the symptoms (S1). In Condition 1 of our first experiment, the presence of the disease was highly contingent on the presence of the other symptom (S2). In Condition 2, the presence of the disease was independent of S2. Judgmental overshadowing occurred in that the S1-disease contingency was judged to be stronger in Condition 2 than in Condition 1. Subsequent experiments showed that judgmental overshadowing depends little on the form of the judgment, is not due to a response bias or contrast effect, and does not depend on subjects' actively diagnosing each patient. These results are consistent with, and are generally predicted by, an associative-learning model of contingency judgment.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

[Effect of information about normative difficulty of questions on level of confidence judgments and feeling of knowing judgments].

This study investigated whether people's levels of confidence (CL) judgments and feeling of knowing (FOK) judgements in answering questions about general knowledge were influenced by information about normative difficulty of the questions--that is, the percentage of people who could recall the correct answer to the question--. In easy-information condition, participants were told that questions were easier--that is, more people could answer the questions--than they really were. In difficult-information condition, participants were told that the same questions were more difficult--that is, less people could answer the questions--than they really were. Results showed that the participants gave higher CL judgments and higher FOK judgments for their answers in the easy-information condition than for their answers in the difficult-information condition. These results confirm the hypothesis that people's CL judgments and FOK judgments were influenced by the information about normative difficulty of questions.

Adult↗

PubMed1988

The context of clinical judgment: the effect of resource availability on judgments of amenability to treatment in juvenile offenders.

One-hundred sixty-eight mental health, welfare, and juvenile court personnel from six different locales within a state rated (a) the "amenability to treatment" of four case vignettes involving juvenile offenders and (b) the effectiveness of a variety of services for youth. Locales were chosen as either low, medium, or high along a continuum of service availability, and the effects of resource availability and agency type on these judgments were examined. These factors had significant effects on both types of judgments, but the directions of the effects were not uniform. Personnel in both high and low resource conditions showed relatively lower ratings of amenability on the vignettes and significant positive correlations between the ratings of service effectiveness and the treatability of the vignette youth. The medium resource personnel in all three agencies showed a negative correlation between these ratings, thus portraying youth as more workable but services as not maximally effective. In general, the results are interpreted as evidence that clinical judgment is systematically affected more by contextual factors than assumed and that this fact bears consideration in formulating the proper role for clinical judgment in juvenile justice.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1991

The self and social judgment: effects of affective reaction and "own position" on judgments of unambiguous and ambiguous information about others.

Ss who differed in the extremity of self-definition ("own position") with respect to a given trait (sociability, independence, or patience) made trait and evaluative judgments of behavioral stimuli that varied in their descriptive implications for that trait. Across 4 experiments, individual differences in trait ratings of unambiguous information were mediated largely by differences in Ss' affective reactions to these stimuli rather than by direct use of own position as a judgmental anchor. When the target information was ambiguous, however, own position influenced trait judgments independently of Ss' affective reactions to these stimuli. These latter effects were moderated by either encoding or informational mechanisms. A theoretical framework is presented that accounts for these results and predicts how effects of self-knowledge on judgments of others should vary across different trait dimensions.

Adult↗

PubMed1989

Information integration in an area judgment task: effect of aids on children's perceptual judgments.

This study was designed to examine the cognitive processes involved in perceptual judgments of area with the methodology and concepts of Anderson's (1981) information integration theory. The Area = Height + Width rule, which Anderson and Cuneo (1978) showed to be operant in children's judgments, can in fact cover two different processes. Children may make a height judgment and then a length judgment and apply an additive integration operation to both. Alternatively, children may base themselves on the figure outline and estimate total length directly as a function of the distance scanned. Similarly, the multiplicatory integration pattern can result either from applying a multiplicatory operation to separate estimates or from visual exploration of the area bounded by the figure. In the present experiment, the characteristics of the areas of the test figures were modified (perimeter marking, rows of Xs covering the area, etc.) to elicit additive or multiplicatory integration patterns as a function of condition. The findings demonstrate that the second interpretation of both rules is more likely.

Attention↗

PubMed1978

The need for process research on psychophysical judgment: comments on "Ratio and subtractive processes in psychophysical judgment" by Veit.

This article is a commentary on Veit's article "Ratio and Subtractive Processes in Psychophysical Judgment." Veit's article makes an important contribution to the area of psychophysical judgment by providing a systematic approach that combines measurement and psychological theory. Using multi-factor designs and a cross-task scale-invariance criterion, Veit shows how to concurrently examine the integration rule, response-transformation function, and psychophysical function for judgment tasks. The need to expand this methodology to further understand the operations and processes underlying psychophysical judgment is stressed in the present article, and an illustration involving feedback mechanisms is provided.

Feedback↗

PubMed2003

Attitudes accentuate attributes in social judgment: the combined effects of substance use, depression, and technical incompetence on judgments of professional impairment.

Evaluative reactions involving attitudes have been shown to affect social judgments under certain conditions. Researchers assume that personality traits and behaviors toward which people hold strong attitudes evoke evaluative reactions. Such reactions influence the importance of these attributes as they are integrated with other information during the formation of social judgments and, in part, account for the accentuation effect. Social judgment was studied in the context of professional-impairment impressions provided by nurses. Data were modeled using hierarchical techniques to examine the interaction between within-judge differences in attribute weighting and between-judges differences in attitudes. Social judgments of fictitious targets were moderated by individual differences in judges' attitudes toward negative target attributes; some, but not all, attributes were accentuated as predicted.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth.

In seems there are two dimensions that underlie most judgments of traits, people, groups, and cultures. Although the definitions vary, the first makes reference to attributes such as competence, agency, and individualism, and the second to warmth, communality, and collectivism. But the relationship between the two dimensions seems unclear. In trait and person judgment, they are often positively related; in group and cultural stereotypes, they are often negatively related. The authors report 4 studies that examine the dynamic relationship between these two dimensions, experimentally manipulating the location of a target of judgment on one and examining the consequences for the other. In general, the authors' data suggest a negative dynamic relationship between the two, moderated by factors the impact of which they explore.

Affect↗

PubMed2005

On judgment and judgmentalism: how counselling can make people better.

Counsellors, like other members of the caring professions, are required to practise within an ethical framework, at least in so far as they seek professional accreditation. As such, the counsellor is called upon to exercise her moral agency. In most professional contexts this requirement is, in itself, unproblematic. It has been suggested, however, that counselling practice does present a problem in this respect, in so far as the counsellor is expected to take a non-judgemental stance and an attitude of "unconditional positive regard" toward the client. If, as might appear to be the case, this stance and attitude are at odds with the making of moral judgments, the possibility of an adequate ethics of counselling is called into question. This paper explores the nature and extent of the problem suggesting that, understood in a Kantian context, non-judgmentalism can be seen to be at odds with neither the moral agency of the counsellor nor that of the client. Instead, it is argued, the relationship between the non-judgmental counsellor and her client is a fundamentally moral relationship, based on respect for the client's unconditional worth as a moral agent.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗