What search terms should I be using?
May 24, 2010 11:25 PM
Sometimes the correct search term or phrase can make a huge difference! Help me jump start my research by knowing which terms to use. Topic: decision making and integration of information (psychology)
I'm a clinical psych student, and so while related to my thesis, my dissertation idea is taking me out of my comfort zone. (my thesis was on substance abuse assessment).
The basic question is, how do people take multiple sources of information and decide how to integrate them to make a decision?
More specifically, if you gave somebody three questionnaires on alcohol abuse (for example), and they all provide you with different numbers, or similar numbers, doesn't matter, how do you decide what to pay attention to? Your favorite scale? The one you know has the most empirical validity? Average them all?
Can anybody point me in the direction of a specific sub-field or researcher? Any jargon I should be searching for? "problem solving" is too vague. "integrating multiple sources of information" gets me hints on writing essays, and "problem solving and integration" gets me calculus results, haha. What am I missing? Thanks in advance for the help!
I'm a clinical psych student, and so while related to my thesis, my dissertation idea is taking me out of my comfort zone. (my thesis was on substance abuse assessment).
The basic question is, how do people take multiple sources of information and decide how to integrate them to make a decision?
More specifically, if you gave somebody three questionnaires on alcohol abuse (for example), and they all provide you with different numbers, or similar numbers, doesn't matter, how do you decide what to pay attention to? Your favorite scale? The one you know has the most empirical validity? Average them all?
Can anybody point me in the direction of a specific sub-field or researcher? Any jargon I should be searching for? "problem solving" is too vague. "integrating multiple sources of information" gets me hints on writing essays, and "problem solving and integration" gets me calculus results, haha. What am I missing? Thanks in advance for the help!
Meta-analysis is the specific term for aggregating multiple research studies.
For the mathematical science of combining multiple sources of information in a generic sense, see Bayesian reasoning (especially updating). (Whether this is how humans actually make decisions is a separate question.)
posted by lunchbox at 11:47 PM on May 24, 2010
For the mathematical science of combining multiple sources of information in a generic sense, see Bayesian reasoning (especially updating). (Whether this is how humans actually make decisions is a separate question.)
posted by lunchbox at 11:47 PM on May 24, 2010
What you've described is a large area of research in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. There are many different hypothesized approaches for how people do these things.
posted by zippy at 11:56 PM on May 24, 2010
posted by zippy at 11:56 PM on May 24, 2010
One bit of the literature you want to look at is stuff on confirmation bias and congeniality bias. These basically say you'll seek out and pay more attention to information that is consistent with your prior beliefs and expectations. The most comprehensive reference to confirmation bias is Nickerson's 1998 paper in Review of General Psychology – not recent, but still the best. There was also a good meta-analysis on congeniality bias by Hart et al in Psychological Bulletin in 2009.
There is a whole other separate group of research on group information processing and decision making. If you're interested in that, a good search term is "hidden profiles".
Hope that helps.
posted by damonism at 12:01 AM on May 25, 2010
There is a whole other separate group of research on group information processing and decision making. If you're interested in that, a good search term is "hidden profiles".
Hope that helps.
posted by damonism at 12:01 AM on May 25, 2010
You may want to check out informatics or translational research, but your school librarian (bonus points for going to a subject specialist!) should be able to help you.
posted by cestmoi15 at 4:40 AM on May 25, 2010
posted by cestmoi15 at 4:40 AM on May 25, 2010
I don't want to sound mean, but if you're not well versed in the literature (and have an advisor/committee member well versed in the literature), why are you writing your diss on this topic?
And why can't your methods person discuss pilot testing scales with you?
Seems like a disaster to me.
posted by k8t at 5:24 AM on May 25, 2010
And why can't your methods person discuss pilot testing scales with you?
Seems like a disaster to me.
posted by k8t at 5:24 AM on May 25, 2010
Your basic question fits into the idea of situational awareness well, but your specific example makes me doubt that answer. At any rate, it is a hot topic in management and leadership circles, so it would be fairly easy to find papers about it.
I like this working definition: the combining of new information with existing knowledge in working memory and the development of a composite picture of the situation along with projections of future status and subsequent decisions as to appropriate courses of action to take
posted by McGuillicuddy at 5:34 AM on May 25, 2010
I like this working definition: the combining of new information with existing knowledge in working memory and the development of a composite picture of the situation along with projections of future status and subsequent decisions as to appropriate courses of action to take
posted by McGuillicuddy at 5:34 AM on May 25, 2010
zippy is right: this is a huge topic, and has been studied in cognitive science for a long time. It's so vast, in fact, that you'll have to invest a lot of time to really understand it.
Nevertheless, here are some useful search terms:
"decision making" + "information integration" + "cognitive science"
"decision making" + "multiple sources of integration" + "cognitive science"
A few broad, overview-ish papers to start you off (but this is such a huge topic that I'm not at all sure it's what you need -- your advisor should really be helping you with this!)
here
here
here
here
here
posted by forza at 6:36 AM on May 25, 2010
Nevertheless, here are some useful search terms:
"decision making" + "information integration" + "cognitive science"
"decision making" + "multiple sources of integration" + "cognitive science"
A few broad, overview-ish papers to start you off (but this is such a huge topic that I'm not at all sure it's what you need -- your advisor should really be helping you with this!)
here
here
here
here
here
posted by forza at 6:36 AM on May 25, 2010
Ooops, that last link goes to this page. Sorry. The other four are good.
posted by forza at 6:37 AM on May 25, 2010
posted by forza at 6:37 AM on May 25, 2010
And, aarg, it's too late at night for me to do this right: "multiple sources of integration" should be "multiple sources of information"
posted by forza at 6:39 AM on May 25, 2010
posted by forza at 6:39 AM on May 25, 2010
Do you have access to the PsycInfo database through your university library? It has a thesaurus tool that will give you papers vetted by the APA and indexed by humans under broader topics such as Broader Term "Decision Making: Cognitive process involving evaluation of the incentives, goals, and outcomes of alternative actions" and Narrower Terms "Choice Behavior: Motivational or judgmental processes involved in the decision or tendency to select one alternative over another or others. Also used for the choices themselves. Used for human or animal populations."
If you're not familiar with using the Thesaurus tool for searching, ask your university librarian to show you how to use it for your particular local database interface.
posted by nonane at 6:43 AM on May 25, 2010
If you're not familiar with using the Thesaurus tool for searching, ask your university librarian to show you how to use it for your particular local database interface.
posted by nonane at 6:43 AM on May 25, 2010
I think I need a little more clarification. I'm wondering if what you are looking for relates to the topic you are interested in (as in, you are interested in how people make decisions in general), or you are wondering how researchers (you, in this case) decide to pay attention to information to make up your mind about how to interpret the data.
In the first case, I think you may be searching for the term "Sensemaking" (wiki link). A cursory Google Scholar turns up more than a few links to un-gated PDFs. There should be more than a few articles there to get you started. Weick and Dervin are some of the major scholars in the field. Mind you, this is a very heavily researched topic in management studies, and in the cognitive sciences in general, but I'm not sure it directly relates to clinical research.
In the second case, as prenominal and others have pointed out, could be the process of meta-analysis. But I suspect that you are not interested in how researchers generalize findings across the entire field, but how researchers make decisions about their own data. This is the problem of testing reliability and validity of individual measures. Consult a good methodology textbook for many references on this topic. Also, there is a seminal paper on this topic by Campbell and Fiske (1959) which, to some extent, addresses how to deal with multiple measures of the same construct. The full reference is:
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethods matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Mail me if you can't get a copy of the PDF.
posted by butwheresthesushi at 7:39 AM on May 25, 2010
In the first case, I think you may be searching for the term "Sensemaking" (wiki link). A cursory Google Scholar turns up more than a few links to un-gated PDFs. There should be more than a few articles there to get you started. Weick and Dervin are some of the major scholars in the field. Mind you, this is a very heavily researched topic in management studies, and in the cognitive sciences in general, but I'm not sure it directly relates to clinical research.
In the second case, as prenominal and others have pointed out, could be the process of meta-analysis. But I suspect that you are not interested in how researchers generalize findings across the entire field, but how researchers make decisions about their own data. This is the problem of testing reliability and validity of individual measures. Consult a good methodology textbook for many references on this topic. Also, there is a seminal paper on this topic by Campbell and Fiske (1959) which, to some extent, addresses how to deal with multiple measures of the same construct. The full reference is:
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethods matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Mail me if you can't get a copy of the PDF.
posted by butwheresthesushi at 7:39 AM on May 25, 2010
To clarify, I'm doing a study in which clinicians will be given three scales providing information about substance abuse. I'll then ask them to rate how likely they think it is that a person providing those values has a problem with substance abuse. So its a question about clinical decision making using assessment materials, but I need to do some broader literature review because it doesn't seem like these questions have been asked, at least in the realm that I'm familiar with at this point.
As for writing on a topic that I'm not "well versed in", all I can say is that I'm very well acquainted with the assessment that I'm using, as well as the properties of the scales I'll be examining. I did my thesis on the design and validity of these scales in multiple settings. Its more the "how do clinicians use this information" question that hasn't been asked before, and is leading me outside my comfort area to get some background information about how people use multiple sources of information, in general. So while its a new realm to me, I don't see it as excluding me from looking into it. After all, when I started grad school, all of it was new to me!
posted by gilsonal at 10:27 AM on May 25, 2010
As for writing on a topic that I'm not "well versed in", all I can say is that I'm very well acquainted with the assessment that I'm using, as well as the properties of the scales I'll be examining. I did my thesis on the design and validity of these scales in multiple settings. Its more the "how do clinicians use this information" question that hasn't been asked before, and is leading me outside my comfort area to get some background information about how people use multiple sources of information, in general. So while its a new realm to me, I don't see it as excluding me from looking into it. After all, when I started grad school, all of it was new to me!
posted by gilsonal at 10:27 AM on May 25, 2010
So to restate what you are saying, what you seem to be needing is how individual clinicians deal with information about a single client/patient to reach a diagnosis.
Off the top of my head, the only obvious thing is to try and see if they stick to the guidelines in the DSM (or ICD), so maybe searching about how closely people match their diagnoses with the official guidelines is the key here. There have been many studies pointing out that clinicians are prone to "overpathologizing" information about clients/patients (Google scholar seems to have some relevant papers).
More closer to your original question is how doctors (MDs) make diagnoses dependent on the information they have about the patient. While not being familiar with medical research at all, it's hard to imagine there is no research about how doctors make diagnoses based on test results.
Hope this helps.
posted by butwheresthesushi at 9:49 PM on May 25, 2010
Off the top of my head, the only obvious thing is to try and see if they stick to the guidelines in the DSM (or ICD), so maybe searching about how closely people match their diagnoses with the official guidelines is the key here. There have been many studies pointing out that clinicians are prone to "overpathologizing" information about clients/patients (Google scholar seems to have some relevant papers).
More closer to your original question is how doctors (MDs) make diagnoses dependent on the information they have about the patient. While not being familiar with medical research at all, it's hard to imagine there is no research about how doctors make diagnoses based on test results.
Hope this helps.
posted by butwheresthesushi at 9:49 PM on May 25, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by prenominal at 11:30 PM on May 24, 2010