Collaboration during the diagnostic decision-making process: When does it help?

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Juliane E. Kämmer, Karin Ernst, Kim Grab, Stefan K. Schauber, Stefanie C. Hautz, Dorothea Penders, Wolf E. Hautz
{"title":"Collaboration during the diagnostic decision-making process: When does it help?","authors":"Juliane E. Kämmer,&nbsp;Karin Ernst,&nbsp;Kim Grab,&nbsp;Stefan K. Schauber,&nbsp;Stefanie C. Hautz,&nbsp;Dorothea Penders,&nbsp;Wolf E. Hautz","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When making complex decisions, such as a medical diagnosis, decision makers typically gather, analyze, and synthesize (integrate) information. In a previous study, we showed that delegating such complex decisions to collaborating pairs increases decision quality substantially compared to that of individuals, without requiring different information gathering. Given the higher costs associated with teamwork, however, it is of great practical interest to understand when in the process the performance benefits of teams may arise, so that particular subtasks can be delegated to teams when most appropriate. We thus conducted an experimental study in which fourth-year medical students (<i>n</i> = 109) worked either in pairs or alone on two separate subtasks of the diagnostic process: (1) analyzing diagnostic test results (e.g., X-rays) and (2) integrating previously interpreted test results into diagnoses. Linear mixed-effects models revealed a small benefit of collaborating pairs over individuals in both subtasks. We conclude that collaborating with a peer may pay off both when analyzing information <i>and</i> when integrating it into a diagnosis as it provides the opportunity to correct each other's errors and to make use of a greater knowledge base. These findings encourage the strategic use of collaboration with a colleague when making complex decisions. Further research into the underlying processes is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2357","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2357","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When making complex decisions, such as a medical diagnosis, decision makers typically gather, analyze, and synthesize (integrate) information. In a previous study, we showed that delegating such complex decisions to collaborating pairs increases decision quality substantially compared to that of individuals, without requiring different information gathering. Given the higher costs associated with teamwork, however, it is of great practical interest to understand when in the process the performance benefits of teams may arise, so that particular subtasks can be delegated to teams when most appropriate. We thus conducted an experimental study in which fourth-year medical students (n = 109) worked either in pairs or alone on two separate subtasks of the diagnostic process: (1) analyzing diagnostic test results (e.g., X-rays) and (2) integrating previously interpreted test results into diagnoses. Linear mixed-effects models revealed a small benefit of collaborating pairs over individuals in both subtasks. We conclude that collaborating with a peer may pay off both when analyzing information and when integrating it into a diagnosis as it provides the opportunity to correct each other's errors and to make use of a greater knowledge base. These findings encourage the strategic use of collaboration with a colleague when making complex decisions. Further research into the underlying processes is needed.

Abstract Image

诊断决策过程中的合作:何时有帮助?
在做出复杂决策(如医疗诊断)时,决策者通常需要收集、分析和综合(整合)信息。在之前的一项研究中,我们发现,与个人相比,将此类复杂决策委托给合作对子会大大提高决策质量,而不需要收集不同的信息。然而,考虑到团队合作的成本较高,了解团队在整个过程中何时会产生绩效优势,从而在最合适的时候将特定的子任务委托给团队,是非常有实际意义的。因此,我们进行了一项实验研究,让四年级医学生(n = 109)结对或单独完成诊断过程中的两个独立子任务:(1)分析诊断测试结果(如 X 光片)和(2)将先前解释的测试结果整合到诊断中。线性混合效应模型显示,在这两项子任务中,两人合作比单人合作略胜一筹。我们的结论是,在分析信息和将信息整合到诊断中时,与同伴合作可能会带来回报,因为这提供了纠正彼此错误和利用更多知识库的机会。这些发现鼓励人们在做出复杂决策时,战略性地利用与同事的合作。我们需要进一步研究其基本过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信