Katrin Fischer

Two meanings of “if”? Individual differences in the interpretation of conditionals

This work investigates the nature of two distinct response patterns in a probabilistic truth table evaluation task, in which people estimate the probability of a conditional on the basis of frequencies of the truth table cases. The conditional-probability pattern reflects an interpretation of conditionals as expressing a conditional probability. The conjunctive pattern suggests that some people treat conditionals as conjunctions, in line with a prediction of the mental-model theory. Experiments 1 and 2 rule out two alternative explanations of the conjunctive pattern. It does not arise from people believing that at least one case matching the conjunction of antecedent and consequent must exist for a conditional to be true, and it does not arise from people adding the converse to the given conditional. Experiment 3 establishes that peoples response patterns in the probabilistic truth table task are very consistent across different conditionals, and that the two response patterns generalize to conditionals with negated antecedents and consequents. Individual differences in rating the probability of a conditional were loosely correlated with corresponding response patterns in a classical truth table evaluation task, but there was little association with peoples evaluation of deductive inferences from conditionals as premises. A theoretical framework is proposed that integrates elements from the conditional-probability view with the theory of mental models.

What makes us believe a conditional? The roles of covariation and causality

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the roles of covariation and of causality in peoples readiness to believe a conditional. The experiments used a probabilistic truth-table task (Oberauer & Wilhelm, 2003) in which people estimated the probability of a conditional given information about the frequency distribution of truth-table cases. For one group of people, belief in the conditional was determined by the conditional probability of the consequent, given the antecedent, whereas for another group it depended on the probability of the conjunction of antecedent and consequent. There was little evidence that covariation, expressed as the probabilistic contrast or as the pCI rule (White, 2003), influences belief in the conditional. The explicit presence of a causal link between antecedent and consequent in a context story had a weak positive effect on belief in a conditional when the frequency distribution of relevant cases was held constant.

Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies

Objectives To explore agreement among healthcare professionals assessing eligibility for work disability benefits. Design Systematic review and narrative synthesis of reproducibility studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO searched up to 16 March 2016, without language restrictions, and review of bibliographies of included studies. Eligibility criteria Observational studies investigating reproducibility among healthcare professionals performing disability evaluations using a global rating of working capacity and reporting inter-rater reliability by a statistical measure or descriptively. Studies could be conducted in insurance settings, where decisions on ability to work include normative judgments based on legal considerations, or in research settings, where decisions on ability to work disregard normative considerations.Teams of paired reviewers identified eligible studies, appraised their methodological quality and generalisability, and abstracted results with pretested forms. As heterogeneity of research designs and findings impeded a quantitative analysis, a descriptive synthesis stratified by setting (insurance or research) was performed. Results From 4562 references, 101 full text articles were reviewed. Of these, 16 studies conducted in an insurance setting and seven in a research setting, performed in 12 countries, met the inclusion criteria. Studies in the insurance setting were conducted with medical experts assessing claimants who were actual disability claimants or played by actors, hypothetical cases, or short written scenarios. Conditions were mental (n=6, 38%), musculoskeletal (n=4, 25%), or mixed (n=6, 38%). Applicability of findings from studies conducted in an insurance setting to real life evaluations ranged from generalisable (n=7, 44%) and probably generalisable (n=3, 19%) to probably not generalisable (n=6, 37%). Median inter-rater reliability among experts was 0.45 (range intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 to κ−0.10). Inter-rater reliability was poor in six studies (37%) and excellent in only two (13%). This contrasts with studies conducted in the research setting, where the median inter-rater reliability was 0.76 (range 0.91-0.53), and 71% (5/7) studies achieved excellent inter-rater reliability. Reliability between assessing professionals was higher when the evaluation was guided by a standardised instrument (23 studies, P=0.006). No such association was detected for subjective or chronic health conditions or the studies’ generalisability to real world evaluation of disability (P=0.46, 0.45, and 0.65, respectively). Conclusions Despite their common use and far reaching consequences for workers claiming disabling injury or illness, research on the reliability of medical evaluations of disability for work is limited and indicates high variation in judgments among assessing professionals. Standardising the evaluation process could improve reliability. Development and testing of instruments and structured approaches to improve reliability in evaluation of disability are urgently needed.

Zu Risiken und Nebenwirkungen fragen Sie Ihren Arzt oder Apotheker

Zusammenfassung. Patienten sollen uber Risiken von Behandlungsverfahren und Medikamenten, uber Unsicherheiten von Diagnosen und Tests, uber Auftretenswahrscheinlichkeiten von Erkrankungen usw. korrekt und angemessen aufgeklart werden. Sie sollen so daruber aufgeklart werden, dass sie die Information verstehen und ihre Entscheidung fur oder gegen eine Behandlung oder ein Medikament uberlegt treffen konnen. Aber welche Informationen sollen dem Patienten gegeben werden? Wie kann der Patient uber Unsicherheiten informiert werden? Welche Faktoren beeinflussen das Verstandnis von Unsicherheit? Im ersten Teil dieses Beitrages skizzieren wir einige Probleme vor dem Hintergrund der Forschung zur Risikokommunikation. Im zweiten Teil stellen wir zwei experimentelle Studien vor, in denen untersucht wurde, von welchen Faktoren die Interpretation verbaler Haufigkeitsausdrucke auf Beipackzetteln zu Medikamenten beeinflusst wird. In Studie 1 pruften wir, ob studentische Probanden verbale Angaben wie “selten“ oder “haufig...

Building Decision Support Systems for Acceptance

Production planning and control fulfill a crucial role in enterprises. Planning and scheduling activities are very complex, and take place within the enterprise and across the entire supply chain in order to achieve high quality products at lower cost, lower inventory and higher levels of customer service. Since the information that has to be processed in planning and scheduling functions is very complex information technology is used extensively to support these functions. In the field of manufacturing planning and control Decision Support Systems (DSS) are used. Those are also known as Advanced Planning Systems (APS).

What are the concerns of claimants who underwent a disability assessment? – a case study

SamenvattingLittle is known about how claimants experience disability assessments. While a variety of patient satisfaction instruments reflect the quality of medical care, no such tool exists for the assessment of work disability. In disability assessment, fairness is a central component of the claimants’ satisfaction with the assessment. We therefore developed a questionnaire that measures to what degree claimants experience the disability assessment as fair. Beyond the 26 items related to fairness, we asked the claimants to comment on additional aspects that affect their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the assessment.94 of 305 participants provided feedback, of which 38 (40.4%) were satisfied and 52 (55.3%) dissatisfied with the assessment, and 4 (4.3%) both or neither. Approving comments addressed in particular the empathy of the expert (13/94, 13.8%), while critical comments complained about poor time management (13/94, 13.8%) and interviewing skills of the experts (12/94, 12.8%). While all expressed satisfaction on varying degrees on the global 7-point scale, claimants expressing approval in their comments versus those with critical feedback were more satisfied (6.3 vs. 4.8) and perceived a higher level of fairness with the assessment (6.5 vs. 4.8, p<0.01, each).

Managing Tacit Knowledge in Safety Critical Systems

Knowledge is in the heads of people. Managing knowledge is more than maintaining data bases, but making sure, that relevant knowledge is transferred from head to head. This is especially difficult regarding tacit knowledge on both, individual and collective level. In this applied research project, two methods aiming at improving an organization’s knowledge management were developed: (a) A method for evaluating existing knowledge management processes from a comprehensive point of view providing concrete measures for improvement and (b) a method especially referring to the elicitation of team specific collective tacit knowledge aiming at facilitating cooperation awareness and triggering individual as well as joint learning. Both methods were developed in close cooperation with industrial partners and pilot tested. They delivered valuable insights for improvements.