IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i6p779-791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of a Decision-Training Aid on Referral Prioritization Capacity

Author

Listed:
  • Priscilla Harries
  • Christopher Tomlinson
  • Elizabeth Notley
  • Miranda Davies
  • Kenneth Gilhooly

Abstract

Background . In the community mental health field, occupational therapy students lack the capacity to prioritize referrals effectively. Objective . The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of a clinical decision-training aid on referral prioritization capacity. Design . A double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted using a judgment analysis approach. Setting . Each participant used the World Wide Web to prioritize referral sets at baseline, immediate posttest, and 2-wk follow-up. The intervention group was provided with training after baseline testing; control group was purely given instructions to continue with the task. Participants . One hundred sixty-five students were randomly allocated to intervention ( n = 87) or control ( n = 81). Intervention . Written and graphical descriptions were given of an expert consensus standard explaining how referral information should be used to prioritize referrals. Measurements . Participants’ prioritization ratings were correlated with the experts’ ratings of the same referrals at each stage of testing, as well as to examine the effect on mean group scores, regression weights, and the lens model indices. Results . At baseline, no differences were found between control and intervention on rating capacity or demographic characteristics. Comparison of the difference in mean correlation baseline scores of the control and intervention group compared with immediate posttest showed a statistically significant result that was maintained at 2-wk follow-up. The effect size was classified as large. At immediate posttest and follow-up, the intervention group improved rating capacity, whereas the control group’s capacity remained poor. The results of this study indicate that the decision-training aid has a positive effect on referral prioritization capacity. Conclusions . This freely available, Web-based decision-training aid will be a valuable adjunct to the education of these novice health professionals internationally.

Suggested Citation

  • Priscilla Harries & Christopher Tomlinson & Elizabeth Notley & Miranda Davies & Kenneth Gilhooly, 2012. "Effectiveness of a Decision-Training Aid on Referral Prioritization Capacity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 779-791, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:6:p:779-791
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12443418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12443418
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12443418?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Kayande, U. & de Bruyn, A. & Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. & van Bruggen, G.H., 2006. "How Feedback Can Improve Managerial Evaluations of Model-based Marketing Decision Support Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-039-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Vandegrift, Donald & Brown, Paul, 2005. "Gender differences in the use of high-variance strategies in tournament competition," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 834-849, December.
    4. Alice F. Stuhlmacher & Matthew V. Champagne, 2000. "The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 471-491, November.
    5. Leung, Patrick W. & Trotman, Ken T., 2005. "The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 537-553, August.
    6. Phillips, Jean M., 1999. "Antecedents of Leader Utilization of Staff Input in Decision-Making Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 215-242, March.
    7. Webby, Richard & O'Connor, Marcus, 1996. "Judgemental and statistical time series forecasting: a review of the literature," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 91-118, March.
    8. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    9. Ujwal Kayande & Arnaud De Bruyn & Gary L. Lilien & Arvind Rangaswamy & Gerrit H. van Bruggen, 2009. "How Incorporating Feedback Mechanisms in a DSS Affects DSS Evaluations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 527-546, December.
    10. Brown, Paul M., 1998. "Experimental evidence on the importance of competing for profits on forecasting accuracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 259-269, January.
    11. Rolison, Jonathan J. & Evans, Jonathan St. B.T. & Dennis, Ian & Walsh, Clare R., 2012. "Dual-processes in learning and judgment: Evidence from the multiple cue probability learning paradigm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 189-202.
    12. Rianne Legerstee & Philip Hans Franses, 2014. "Do Experts’ SKU Forecasts Improve after Feedback?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 69-79, January.
    13. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    14. Montazemi, A. R. & Gupta, K. M., 1997. "On the effectiveness of cognitive feedback from an interface agent," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 643-658, December.
    15. Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
    16. Patrick W. Leung & Ken T. Trotman, 2008. "Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors’ configural information processing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(2), pages 301-318, June.
    17. Mary Kynn, 2008. "The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 239-264, January.
    18. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    19. Vandegrift, Donald & Yavas, Abdullah, 2009. "Men, women, and competition: An experimental test of behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 554-570, October.
    20. F. Javier Lerch & Donald E. Harter, 2001. "Cognitive Support for Real-Time Dynamic Decision Making," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 63-82, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:6:p:779-791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.