dc.contributor.author | Evans, Spencer C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Roberts, Michael C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Keeley, Jared W. | |
dc.contributor.author | Blossom, Jennifer B. | |
dc.contributor.author | Amaro, Christina M. | |
dc.contributor.author | Garcia, Andrea Magdalena | |
dc.contributor.author | Stough, Cathleen | |
dc.contributor.author | Canter, Kimberly S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Robles, Rebeca | |
dc.contributor.author | Reed, Geoffrey M. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-12-13T17:18:05Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-12-13T17:18:05Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Evans, S. C., Roberts, M. C., Keeley, J. W., Blossom, J. B., Amaro, C. M., Garcia, A. M., … Reed, G. M. (2015). Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(2), 160–170. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1808/22205 | |
dc.description.abstract | Vignette-based methodologies are frequently used to examine judgments and decision-making processes, including clinical judgments made by health professionals. Concerns are sometimes raised that vignettes do not accurately reflect “real world” phenomena, and that this affects the validity of results and conclusions of these studies. This article provides an overview of the defining features, design variations, strengths, and weaknesses of vignette studies as a way of examining how health professionals form clinical judgments (e.g., assigning diagnoses, selecting treatments). As a “hybrid” of traditional survey and experimental methods, vignette studies can offer aspects of both the high internal validity of experiments and the high external validity of survey research in order to disentangle multiple predictors of clinician behavior. When vignette studies are well designed to test specific questions about judgments and decision-making, they can be highly generalizable to “real life” behavior, while overcoming the ethical, practical, and scientific limitations associated with alternative methods (e.g., observation, self-report, standardized patients, archival analysis). We conclude with methodological recommendations and a description of how vignette methodologies are being used to investigate clinicians’ diagnostic decisions in case-controlled field studies for the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders, and how these studies illustrate the preceding concepts and recommendations | en_US |
dc.publisher | Asociación Española de Psicología Conductual | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons License | en_US |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | |
dc.subject | Vignette Methodology | en_US |
dc.subject | Experimental Design | en_US |
dc.subject | Clinical Decision-Making | en_US |
dc.subject | International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) | en_US |
dc.subject | Theoretical study | en_US |
dc.title | Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies | en_US |
dc.title.alternative | Metodología basada en viñetas para el estudio de toma de decisiones clínicas: validez, utilidad y aplicación en los estudios de campo de la CIE-11 | |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
kusw.kuauthor | Roberts Michael C. | |
kusw.kudepartment | Graduate Studies | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001 | en_US |
dc.identifier.orcid | https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8644-817X | |
kusw.oaversion | Scholarly/refereed, publisher version | en_US |
kusw.oapolicy | This item meets KU Open Access policy criteria. | en_US |
dc.rights.accessrights | openAccess | |