Andrew Parker - US grants

Every day, people face decisions in domains as diverse as the choice of shampoos, stocks, medical treatments, and friends. When people have not learned what to do through trial and error, they need a general ability to make effective decisions. The attendant skills include extracting relevant information from the world, applying general values in specific settings, and integrating these pieces with a coherent decision rule. Research has often found deficiencies in such skills. While interest in general cognitive processes has diverted attention from individual differences, people do differ substantially in these skills.

Parker and Fischhoff (2002) used this performance variability to develop a measure of decision-making competence (DMC). Seven tasks, tapping into the above skills, were administered to respondents from an ongoing longitudinal study. Performance correlated positively across the seven DMC tasks, suggesting a common central competency. A single DMC score correlated strongly with measures of intelligence, cognitive style, risk behavior, and social/family influences. Although the CEDAR study demonstrates the potential of DMC, it is limited by problems with some of the instruments and special properties of the sample used. The current research includes four studies that will further refine the seven DMC tasks. Each study addresses individual decision-making skills in light of recent theoretical developments and improving overall scale properties. In addition, these studies provide opportunities for addressing scientific questions within the individual task domains.

This connection of laboratory results with "real world" behavior is an exercise itself that has not been widely pursued. It provides the opportunity to clarify the validity of decision-making research findings, as well as shed light on the underlying theory. This work has applications to the training of individuals to make better decisions, competence in making legal and medical decisions, as well as relative performance in competitive environments.

PROJECT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT Suboptimal vaccination rates and the constantly shifting vaccine landscape resulting from changing vaccine recommendations; the development of novel vaccines or vaccine technologies; ?vaccine scares?; and outbreaks from vaccine preventable diseases means organizations that are responsible for creating vaccine recommendations, policies, etc. need information about health care providers and the general public to inform their decision-making by anticipating possible reactions to their efforts in these groups. Sentinel physician networks?pre-recruited groups of physicians?have been the predominant method for obtaining this information since 2004 but suffer from major methodological weaknesses: 1) repeatedly surveying a potentially biased set of respondents, months-long data collection, and inflexibility beyond established sentinel physician networks. As a result, there is a critical need to utilize new survey methodologies that has similar speed, costs, and representativeness as sentinel physician networks but overcomes its weaknesses. Without this knowledge, we will continue to collect information on immunization- related issues using a method that is potentially biased and lacks the speed and flexibility that CDC needs. The long-term goal of this proposal is to establish a new methodology for collecting data on immunization issues that provides this information more quickly, affordably, flexibly, and arguably more representative than sentinel physician networks. The overall objective of this application is to recruit health care workers and members of the general public via opt-in, online survey panels and use computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI) instruments to meet the information needs of CDC and other groups who make vaccine recommendations, policies, and programs. To that end, our objectives for this proposal are listed below. ? Develop, revise, and finalize survey items within 4 weeks of identifying the survey topic ? Program the survey and conduct user testing within 2 weeks of survey items being finalized ? Obtain IRB approval from for each new survey within 2 weeks of submitting the IRB application ? Finish data collection for each survey in ?3 weeks if surveying pediatricians, family physicians, general internists, and/or obstetricians-gynecologists (N=300/specialty), or U.S. adults (N=1,000) ? Finish data collection in ?6 weeks if surveying other medical specialties (e.g., geriatricians) ? Analyze data within 3 weeks of finishing data collection ? Complete report of initial findings to the CDC within 4 weeks of finishing data collection ? Complete a minimum of 3 surveys of pediatricians, family physicians, & general internists each year ? Submit abstracts based on the survey results to at least 2 national or international conferences each year ? Submit 3 manuscripts based on survey results each year after Year 1 ? Present requested results to ACIP and other immunization-related organizations, at their request