IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v14y1994i2p146-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Roles of Experience and Domain of Expertise in Using Numerical and Verbal Probability Terms in Medical Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Daniëlle Timmermans

Abstract

Verbal probability terms are frequently used in medical practice. In the present experiment the use of verbal and numerical probability terms in medical decisions was investigated. Interns, residents in surgery and internal medicine, surgeons, and internists were asked to make treatment decisions for three different cases (acute appendicitis, angina pectoris, and an imaginary disease) and were also asked to give numerical interpretations of a series of verbal probability terms. In the second stage of the experiment the respondents received the same cases, but with numerical probability terms. The results showed no effect of context or of domain experience on the interpretation of verbal terms. Residents and experienced surgeons more often agreed on treatment decisions when chance information was presented in numerical terms as compared with verbal terms. Physicians were less confident when verbal terms were presented, but only for the less familiar decision problems. Finally, phy sicians turned out to be better in Bayesian reasoning when numerical terms were used. Experienced physicians were quite accurate in estimating the posterior probability in the appendicitis case, but not in the imaginary-disease case. Key words: verbal probabilities; Bayesian reasoning; expertise. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:146-156)

Suggested Citation

  • Daniëlle Timmermans, 1994. "The Roles of Experience and Domain of Expertise in Using Numerical and Verbal Probability Terms in Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(2), pages 146-156, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:2:p:146-156
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9401400207
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9401400207?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. Hogarth, Robin M. (ed.), 1990. "Insights in Decision Making," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226348551, September.
    2. Jon F. Merz & Marek J. Druzdzel & Dennis J. Mazur, 1991. "Verbal Expressions of Probability in Informed Consent Litigation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 11(4), pages 273-281, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    2. Bryson, Noel (Kweku-Muata) & Mobolurin, Ayodele, 1999. "A process for generating quantitative belief functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 624-633, June.

    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. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    2. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Pedro Ferreira, 2020. "The Effect of Binge-Watching on the Subscription of Video on Demand: Results from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1337-1360, December.
    3. Kawagoe, Toshiji & Narita, Yusuke, 2014. "Guilt aversion revisited: An experimental test of a new model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Peeta, Srinivas, 2016. "A marginal utility day-to-day traffic evolution model based on one-step strategic thinkingAuthor-Name: He, Xiaozheng," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 237-255.
    5. Ganguly, Ananda R & Kagel, John H & Moser, Donald V, 2000. "Do Asset Market Prices Reflect Traders' Judgment Biases?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 219-245, May.
    6. Jason Delaney & Sarah Jacobson & Thorsten Moenig, 2020. "Preference discovery," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 694-715, September.
    7. Wayne DeSarbo & Duncan Fong & John Liechty & Jennifer Coupland, 2005. "Evolutionary preference/utility functions: A dynamic perspective," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 179-202, March.
    8. David Drewery & Colleen Nevison & T. Judene Pretti & Lauren Cormier & Sage Barclay & Antoine Pennaforte, 2016. "Examining the influence of selected factors on perceived co-op work term quality from a student perspective," Post-Print hal-02103137, HAL.
    9. Edmonds, Joyce K. & Hruschka, Daniel & Bernard, H. Russell & Sibley, Lynn, 2012. "Women’s social networks and birth attendant decisions: Application of the Network-Episode Model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 452-459.
    10. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    11. Peep F.M. Stalmeier & Thom G.G. Bezembinder, 1999. "The Discrepancy between Risky and Riskless Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 435-447, October.
    12. Ariely, Dan & Zauberman, Gal, 2003. "Differential partitioning of extended experiences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 128-139, July.
    13. Jacob Goeree & Jens GroЯer, 2004. "False Consensus Voting and Welfare Reducing Polls," Working Paper Series in Economics 9, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    14. Nuthall, Peter L., 1999. "Managerial Ability (The Forgotten Resource) Its Assessment And Modification," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 124495, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "The False Consensus Effect: Deconstruction and Reconstruction of an Anomaly," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp233, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    16. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    17. Masel, Joanna, 2007. "A Bayesian model of quasi-magical thinking can explain observed cooperation in the public good game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 216-231, October.
    18. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    19. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    20. Francesco Ferrante, 2009. "Education, Aspirations and Life Satisfaction," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 542-562, November.

    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:14:y:1994:i:2:p:146-156. 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.