IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v18y2016i3p370-378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Option generation in the treatment of unstable patients: An experienced‐novice comparison study

Author

Listed:
  • James Whyte
  • Roxanne Pickett‐Hauber
  • Maria D. Whyte

Abstract

There are a dearth of studies that quantitatively measure nurses' appreciation of stimuli and the subsequent generation of options in practice environments. The purpose of this paper was to provide an examination of nurses' ability to solve problems while quantifying the stimuli upon which they focus during patient care activities. The study used a quantitative descriptive method that gathered performance data from a simulated task environment using multi‐angle video and audio. These videos were coded and transcripts of all of the actions that occurred in the scenario and the verbal reports of the participants were compiled. The results revealed a pattern of superiority of the experienced exemplar group. Novice actions were characterized by difficulty in following common protocols, inconsistencies in their evaluative approaches, and a pattern of omissions of key actions. The study provides support for the deliberate practice‐based programs designed to facilitate higher‐level performance in novices.

Suggested Citation

  • James Whyte & Roxanne Pickett‐Hauber & Maria D. Whyte, 2016. "Option generation in the treatment of unstable patients: An experienced‐novice comparison study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 370-378, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:18:y:2016:i:3:p:370-378
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12280
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12280?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. Klein, Gary & Wolf, Steve & Militello, Laura & Zsambok, Caroline, 1995. "Characteristics of Skilled Option Generation in Chess," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 63-69, April.
    2. Christine E. Earley, 2002. "The Differential Use of Information by Experienced and Novice Auditors in the Performance of Ill†Structured Audit Tasks," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 595-614, December.
    3. Johnson, Joseph G. & Raab, Markus, 2003. "Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 215-229, July.
    4. Alison Twycross & Lucy Powls, 2006. "How do children's nurses make clinical decisions? Two preliminary studies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(10), pages 1324-1335, 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. Azad M. Madni, 2014. "Generating Novel Options during Systems Architecting: Psychological Principles, Systems Thinking, and Computer‐Based Aiding," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Mojzisch, Andreas & Häusser, Jan Alexander & Leder, Johannes, 2020. "The effects of option generation on post-decisional regret in everyday life decision-making: A field experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Lau, Yeng Wai, 2014. "Aggregated or disaggregated information first?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2376-2384.
    4. Rottenstreich, Yuval & Kivetz, Ran, 2006. "On decision making without likelihood judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 74-88, September.
    5. Lisa M. Gaynor & Andrea S. Kelton, 2014. "The effects of analyst forecasts and earnings trends on perceptions of management forecast credibility," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(1), pages 189-210, March.
    6. Johnson, Joseph G. & Raab, Markus, 2003. "Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 215-229, July.
    7. David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2006. "Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 529-541, April.
    8. Dane, Erik & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Pratt, Michael G., 2012. "When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 187-194.
    9. Azzurra Ruggeri & Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2012. "More Does Not Always Lead to Better: Mothers, Young Women, and Girls Generating Causes of a Baby Crying," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 038, University of Siena.
    10. Justin Okoli & John Watt & Gordon Weller & William B L Wong, 2016. "The role of expertise in dynamic risk assessment: A reflection of the problem-solving strategies used by experienced fireground commanders," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 4-25, February.
    11. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    12. Keziban Avcı & Songül Çınaroğlu & Mehmet Top, 2017. "Perceptions of Pediatric Nurses on Ethical Decision Making Processes," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 67-84, February.
    13. Evi Maria & Yayuk Ariyani, 2014. "E-Commerce Impact: The Impact of E-Audit Implementation on the Auditor’s Performance (Empirical Study of the Public Accountant Firms in Semarang, Indonesia)," Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, Educational Research Multimedia & Publications,India, vol. 5(3), pages 01-07, September.
    14. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "The effect of cognitive diversity on the illusion of control bias in strategic decisions: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 430-439.
    15. Morgulev, Elia & Azar, Ofer H. & Lidor, Ronnie & Sabag, Eran & Bar-Eli, Michael, 2014. "Deception and decision making in professional basketball: Is it beneficial to flop?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 108-118.
    16. Lina Zhou & Yu-wei Sung & Dongsong Zhang, 2013. "Deception Performance in Online Group Negotiation and Decision Making: The Effects of Deception Experience and Deception Skill," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 153-172, January.
    17. Bruce A. Reinig & Robert O. Briggs, 2013. "Putting Quality First in Ideation Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 943-973, September.
    18. Fioretta Silvestri & Matteo Campanella & Maurizio Bertollo & Maicon Rodrigues Albuquerque & Valerio Bonavolontà & Fabrizio Perroni & Carlo Baldari & Laura Guidetti & Davide Curzi, 2023. "Acute Effects of Fitlight Training on Cognitive-Motor Processes in Young Basketball Players," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-14, January.
    19. Ulf Mohrmann & Jan Riepe & Ulrike Stefani, 2013. "Are Extensive Audits 'Good News'? Market Perceptions of Abnormal Audit Fees and Fair Value Disclosures," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2013-08, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    20. Sarah Bonner & Tracie Majors & Stacey Ritter, 2018. "Prepopulating Audit Workpapers with Prior Year Assessments: Default Option Effects on Risk Rating Accuracy," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(5), pages 1453-1481, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:nuhsci:v:18:y:2016:i:3:p:370-378. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1442-2018 .

    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.