Thesis (M.S.)--Springfield College, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.

This work gives an account of an empirical study on the assessment of judgments of individuals in a group. The phenomenon of judgment or decision making in groups appears in various contexts. However we are interested in situations where each member of a group is required to give independently of other members of the group, his most informed and reasoned judgment on a controversial issue. Nonetheless, it is of interest to gain knowledge about the importance of various judgments about the issue, and also of the arguments (or reasons) put forward by the judges to support their judgments. Such situations of judgmentmaking raise methodological problems for collecting judgmental data, and methods, such as, face-to-face discussion or the Delphi method may not be appropriate. To circumvent this problem, a new method called 'Qualitative Controlled Feedback' (Q.C.F.) was developed by Press [13]. Our aim in the present work is to examine the workings of the method by its application to a real world situation. With this aim, judgments (and other data of interest) were collected, using a three-stage Q.C.F. survey, from a random sample group of Faculty and Staff members of the University of British Columbia on a question related to the issue of whether or not the University should build an Indoor Aquatic Center on the campus. The data was analysed from an exploratory viewpoint. It was observed that qualitative controlled feedback creates a good interaction (in the sense of exchanging arguments and reasons) among the group members. Change in judgment occurred as subjects went from one stage to another after having qualitative feedback of information. By comparing with a control group of subjects, it was also found that qualitative feedback was able to produce more rational judgments than without any feedback. The distributions of judgment obtained in this empirical study bear significant implications for decision making. The distributions were found to be bimodal and represented two opposing groups of thought. Other results involve, regression analysis, transition probabilities of judgment change from one stage to another, analysis of judgment change behavior, importance of reasons, effect of non-response on judgment distributions and analysis of confidence in judgment. Finally, it was found that the method of Qualitative Controlled Feedback can be fruitfully applied to situations of practical interest. / Science, Faculty of / Mathematics, Department of / Graduate

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Clinical judgment provides the basis for nurses’ actions and is essential for the provision of safe nursing care. Tanner’s Clinical Judgment Model and its associated instrument, the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) have been used in the discipline of nursing, yet it is unclear if scores on the rubric actually translate to the completion of an indicated nursing action. This is important because clinical judgment involves identifying and responding to patient situations through nursing action, and then evaluation of such actions. The purpose of this observational study was to explore the relationship between clinical judgment, as measured by the LCJR, and the completion of an indicated nursing action, as measured by a nursing action form. The clinical judgment and completion of an indicated nursing action was measured in 92 participant students at a Midwestern university school of nursing who were enrolled in an adult medical/surgical nursing course that included simulation and debriefing during which scoring occurred. This study explored whether clinical judgment, as measured by the LCJR, was related to the completion of an indicated nursing action. In addition, this study evaluated whether Responding, as measured by the LCJR was related to the completion of an indicated nursing action. The data revealed that a very weak relationship was present between clinical judgment, as measured by the LCJR, and the completion of an indicated nursing action; however, these findings were not statistically significant. The data also revealed that a very weak relationship was present between the dimension Responding, and the completion of an indicated nursing action; however, these findings were also not statistically significant. This study expands upon previous clinical judgment research in nursing and identifies a need for additional methods of evaluating clinical judgment in baccalaureate nursing students including action appraisal so that deficiencies are established and targeted for improvement.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Prior entry refers to the notion that attended stimuli are perceived sooner than unattended stimuli due to a speed up in sensory processing. The century long debate regarding the prior entry phenomenon’s existence has always been grounded in the degree to which the methods applied to the problem allow for cognitive response bias. This thesis continues that trend by applying the synchrony comparison judgment method to the problem of audiovisual prior entry. Experiment 1 put this method into context with two other common psychophysical methods – the temporal order judgment and the synchrony judgment – that have been applied to the prior entry problem. The results of this experiment indicated that the temporal order judgment method was out of step with the other two methods in terms of the parameter estimates typically used to evaluate prior entry. Experiment 2 evaluated and confirmed that a specific response bias helps explain the difference in parameter estimates between the temporal order judgment method and the other two. Experiment 3 evaluated the precision of the synchrony comparison judgment method. The results indicated that the method was precise enough to detect potentially small prior entry effect sizes, and that it afforded the ability to detect those participants with points of subjective synchrony that deviate substantially from zero. Finally, Experiment 4 applied the synchrony comparison judgment method to a prior entry scenario. A prior entry effect was not realized. Overall, this thesis highlights the drawbacks of all previous methods used to evaluate audiovisual perception, including prior entry, and validates the use of the synchrony comparison judgment. Further, due to the resistance of this method to response bias, this result now stands as the most convincing evidence yet against the prior entry phenomenon.

Prior entry refers to the notion that attended stimuli are perceived sooner than unattended stimuli due to a speed up in sensory processing. The century long debate regarding the prior entry phenomenon’s existence has always been grounded in the degree to which the methods applied to the problem allow for cognitive response bias. This thesis continues that trend by applying the synchrony comparison judgment method to the problem of audiovisual prior entry. Experiment 1 put this method into context with two other common psychophysical methods – the temporal order judgment and the synchrony judgment – that have been applied to the prior entry problem. The results of this experiment indicated that the temporal order judgment method was out of step with the other two methods in terms of the parameter estimates typically used to evaluate prior entry. Experiment 2 evaluated and confirmed that a specific response bias helps explain the difference in parameter estimates between the temporal order judgment method and the other two. Experiment 3 evaluated the precision of the synchrony comparison judgment method. The results indicated that the method was precise enough to detect potentially small prior entry effect sizes, and that it afforded the ability to detect those participants with points of subjective synchrony that deviate substantially from zero. Finally, Experiment 4 applied the synchrony comparison judgment method to a prior entry scenario. A prior entry effect was not realized. Overall, this thesis highlights the drawbacks of all previous methods used to evaluate audiovisual perception, including prior entry, and validates the use of the synchrony comparison judgment. Further, due to the resistance of this method to response bias, this result now stands as the most convincing evidence yet against the prior entry phenomenon.

Prior entry refers to the notion that attended stimuli are perceived sooner than unattended stimuli due to a speed up in sensory processing. The century long debate regarding the prior entry phenomenon’s existence has always been grounded in the degree to which the methods applied to the problem allow for cognitive response bias. This thesis continues that trend by applying the synchrony comparison judgment method to the problem of audiovisual prior entry. Experiment 1 put this method into context with two other common psychophysical methods – the temporal order judgment and the synchrony judgment – that have been applied to the prior entry problem. The results of this experiment indicated that the temporal order judgment method was out of step with the other two methods in terms of the parameter estimates typically used to evaluate prior entry. Experiment 2 evaluated and confirmed that a specific response bias helps explain the difference in parameter estimates between the temporal order judgment method and the other two. Experiment 3 evaluated the precision of the synchrony comparison judgment method. The results indicated that the method was precise enough to detect potentially small prior entry effect sizes, and that it afforded the ability to detect those participants with points of subjective synchrony that deviate substantially from zero. Finally, Experiment 4 applied the synchrony comparison judgment method to a prior entry scenario. A prior entry effect was not realized. Overall, this thesis highlights the drawbacks of all previous methods used to evaluate audiovisual perception, including prior entry, and validates the use of the synchrony comparison judgment. Further, due to the resistance of this method to response bias, this result now stands as the most convincing evidence yet against the prior entry phenomenon.