Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment
Research endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2009-03-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002576/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797701745144496128 |
|---|---|
| author | Victoria A. Shaffer Lukas Hulsey Philip T. Dunwoody Robin Hogarth |
| author_facet | Victoria A. Shaffer Lukas Hulsey Philip T. Dunwoody Robin Hogarth |
| author_sort | Victoria A. Shaffer |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Research endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:40:09Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8e1bc0bdadef456e8d86c19be51aa05f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:40:09Z |
| publishDate | 2009-03-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-8e1bc0bdadef456e8d86c19be51aa05f2023-09-03T09:45:42ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752009-03-01414114610.1017/S1930297500002576Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgmentVictoria A. Shaffer0Lukas Hulsey1Philip T. DunwoodyRobin HogarthDepartment of Psychology, Wichita State UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Wichita State UniversityResearch endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002576/type/journal_articlecorrespondencecoherencepatient decision aidsmedical decision making |
| spellingShingle | Victoria A. Shaffer Lukas Hulsey Philip T. Dunwoody Robin Hogarth Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment Judgment and Decision Making correspondence coherence patient decision aids medical decision making |
| title | Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment |
| title_full | Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment |
| title_fullStr | Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment |
| title_short | Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment |
| title_sort | are patient decision aids effective insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment |
| topic | correspondence coherence patient decision aids medical decision making |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002576/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT victoriaashaffer arepatientdecisionaidseffectiveinsightfromrevisitingthedebatebetweencorrespondenceandcoherencetheoriesofjudgment AT lukashulsey arepatientdecisionaidseffectiveinsightfromrevisitingthedebatebetweencorrespondenceandcoherencetheoriesofjudgment AT philiptdunwoody arepatientdecisionaidseffectiveinsightfromrevisitingthedebatebetweencorrespondenceandcoherencetheoriesofjudgment AT robinhogarth arepatientdecisionaidseffectiveinsightfromrevisitingthedebatebetweencorrespondenceandcoherencetheoriesofjudgment |