Psychological Research and the Prostate-Cancer Screening Controversy

Arkes, Hal R.; Gaissmaier, Wolfgang

Psychological Research and the Prostate-Cancer Screening Controversy

Dateien

Arkes_279185.pdfGröße: 1.36 MBDownloads: 890

Datum

2012

Autor:innen

Arkes, Hal R.

Gaissmaier, Wolfgang

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Green

Sammlungen

Psychologie

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Psychological Science. 2012, 23(6), pp. 547-553. ISSN 0956-7976. eISSN 1467-9280. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0956797612437428

Zusammenfassung

In October of 2011, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a draft report in which they recommended against using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for prostate cancer. We attempt to show that four factors documented by psychological research can help explain the furor that followed the release of the task force’s report. These factors are the persuasive power of anecdotal (as opposed to statistical) evidence, the influence of personal experience, the improper evaluation of data, and the influence of low base rates on the efficacy of screening tests. We suggest that augmenting statistics with facts boxes or pictographs might help such committees communicate more effectively with the public and with the U.S. Congress.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

150 Psychologie

Schlagwörter

decision making, health, judgment, policy making, scientific communication

Zitieren

ISO 690

ARKES, Hal R., Wolfgang GAISSMAIER, 2012. Psychological Research and the Prostate-Cancer Screening Controversy. In: Psychological Science. 2012, 23(6), pp. 547-553. ISSN 0956-7976. eISSN 1467-9280. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0956797612437428

BibTex

@article{Arkes2012-06Psych-27918,
  year={2012},
  doi={10.1177/0956797612437428},
  title={Psychological Research and the Prostate-Cancer Screening Controversy},
  number={6},
  volume={23},
  issn={0956-7976},
  journal={Psychological Science},
  pages={547--553},
  author={Arkes, Hal R. and Gaissmaier, Wolfgang}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/27918">
    <dc:contributor>Arkes, Hal R.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Arkes, Hal R.</dc:creator>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-05-26T08:50:50Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Psychological Science ; 23 (2012), 6. - S. 547-553</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:creator>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-05-26T08:50:50Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/27918/1/Arkes_279185.pdf"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/27918"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">In October of 2011, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a draft report in which they recommended against using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for prostate cancer. We attempt to show that four factors documented by psychological research can help explain the furor that followed the release of the task force’s report. These factors are the persuasive power of anecdotal (as opposed to statistical) evidence, the influence of personal experience, the improper evaluation of data, and the influence of low base rates on the efficacy of screening tests. We suggest that augmenting statistics with facts boxes or pictographs might help such committees communicate more effectively with the public and with the U.S. Congress.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:title>Psychological Research and the Prostate-Cancer Screening Controversy</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:issued>2012-06</dcterms:issued>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/27918/1/Arkes_279185.pdf"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Universitätsbibliographie

Nein