Expert Bias Research Articles

Communication Breakdown: Consultation or Delegation from an Expert with Uncertain Bias

When communicating with an uninformed decision maker, the motives behind an expert's message are often unclear. To explore this and investigate its impact on organizational design, we extend the cheap-talk model of Crawford and Sobel (1982) to allow for uncertainty over the expert's bias. We find that, in contrast to Dessein (2002), it is possible that the decision maker prefers communication to delegation; that is, it can be optimal for a decision maker to retain control and to solicit advice from the expert.

Pulling Back the Curtain: Improving Reviews in Environmental Health

Pulling Back the Curtain: Improving Reviews in Environmental Health

In vivo target recognition with high-resolution imaging: significance for drug development

In vivo target identification is basic for understanding mechanisms of drug action. Target identification requires cellular resolution. Extrapolation from blood bioavailability, low-resolution scans, radioassays, or in vitro tests regularly produce false-negatives and false-positives. Common ADME procedures disrealize organ complexities. While low-specificity high-capacity sites of deposition are easily recognized, high-specificity low-capacity receptor sites remain hidden. Serious limitations of target recognition are revealed in comparative studies with three methods: high-resolution microscopic autoradiography, radioassay, and whole-body autoradiography. With radioassays and whole-body autoradiography, many targets are simply undetectable. For example, high-resolution microscopic target information for vitamin D, gained 20-30 years ago, was widely ignored. The narrow calcium focus for this multi-target and multi-function hormone was perpetuated until recently through deficient results from conventional assays together with related expert bias. Thus, follow-up has been delayed on discoveries from the use of unconventional histopharmacology methods, pointing at important actions and therapies beyond systemic calcium regulation. High-resolution 'in vivo' target identification with associated functional characterization is useful not only for understanding mechanisms of action, but also for providing leads for innovative and successful drug development and prediction.

Progress and Challenges in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death throughout the world. There is evidence that screening of average-risk individuals can result in mortality reduction with early cancer detection and cancer prevention by detection and removal of cancer precursor lesions. The optimal form of screening is not clear. Fecal screening tests can be performed at home at low initial cost, but current versions lack high sensitivity for cancer precursor lesions, and tests need to be repeated at regular intervals. Adherence to repeat testing for negative tests and referral for colonoscopy for positive tests are important elements of program effectiveness. Structural examinations of the colon are more invasive and may result in detection of both early cancer and cancer precursor lesions. Every screening program has advantages and limitations, but each program ultimately depends on quality and patient adherence.

Experts’ Political Preferences and Their Impact on Ideological Bias

Expert surveys have become increasingly popular among political scientists. One of the problems of using surveys (of any sort) to estimate party positions is that respondents can be influenced by their subjective political views. As a consequence, experts may give biased responses, and such (ideological) bias may affect certain parties more than others. In this paper, we use the latest expert survey of Benoit and Laver (2006) to unfold the ideal points of the respondents to the survey. By employing the estimated ideal points, we show that in almost 16 percent of the cases analyzed, there is evidence of an ideological bias in the experts’ placements of parties along the left—right dimension, especially among right-wing parties (but not necessarily extreme-right parties). We examine two methods designed to generate less biased estimates. The first one is directly based on a regression technique, while the second is based on the negligibility of ideological bias in experts’ answers to more specific policy questions. The paper concludes by examining the consequences of these findings for empirical research.

‘Judging’ Economists: Economic Expertise in Competition Law Litigation - A European View

The study focuses on the admissibility and assessment of economic expertise in EC competition law litigation. I start by exploring the broader issues raised by the integration of economic expertise in litigation: in particular the risk of moral hazard and adverse selection because of the epistemic asymmetry between judges and experts and the risk of expert bias. The analysis of these problems will bring me to the question of the conception of science and of the relations between science and law that underpins the concept of scientific expertise and, more specifically, economic expertise. I will then identify the extent of the problem of epistemic asymmetry and expert bias by looking to the degree and the locus of the intrusion of economic analysis in competition cases. I will examine the instruments, procedural and substantive, employed by the legal system, in order to mitigate the risks flowing from the epistemic asymmetry and the expert bias claims. First, I will highlight the different institutional and procedural frameworks that were adopted at the European Union level and in some selected member states in order to integrate economic expertise in litigation. My objective will be to understand how these institutional solutions may address each of the identified problems. Second, I will look to 'substantive' law approaches in the adjudication of expertise, such as the development of specific standards for the admissibility and the sufficiency of economic expertise in courts, as an alternative or as an additional option to deal with the challenges raised by economic expertise. The paper will conclude that the possible adverse effects of the epistemic asymmetry and expert bias between judges and experts raise important concerns that the legal systems should tackle. The current procedural/institutional and substantive legal framework governing economic expertise does not however take sufficiently into account important concerns that are specific to economics and other social sciences, such as the preservation of the scientific 'competition' in the supply of economic theory and consequently methodological or assumptions-related pluralism in economic thought. In particular, I will argue against adopting specific standards of admissibility of economic expertise in Europe. This is a US context-specific solution which does not necessarily fit with the specific characteristics of the European legal system. It is also an approach that represents an outdated and partial view of the scientific as well as of the judicial adjudication process.

INVOLVED PARTIES' CONTENTMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM IN ESTONIA

Besides other approaches, interviewing main actors (decision-makers, consultants, developers) can provide valuable information about their subjective attitude as well as indicate probable weak areas and help in formulation of strategy for further research and EIA system development. This paper considers results of the survey conducted in Estonia in early 2008 as a part of national EIA system analysis. The survey covered main actors' contentment with different aspects such as EIA legislation, public participation, EIA outcomes, experts' qualification and impartiality, etc. As evidenced by what they have pointed out, the EIA system leaves much to be desired. All actors seemed to be worried about the low effectiveness of EIA. Deficiencies in public participation were also brought forward. Decision-makers trusted consultants' qualifications, but many of them felt that consultants were biased. However, the obtained results did not indicate any correlation between expert bias and contentment with EIA outcomes, perceived by decision-makers.

Letter to the Editor Re: Orthopaedic Surgeons Prefer to Participate in Expertise-based Randomized Trials

Letter to the Editor Re: Orthopaedic Surgeons Prefer to Participate in Expertise-based Randomized Trials

Reply to Letter to Editor: Orthopaedic Surgeons Prefer to Participate in Expertise-based Randomized Trials

We thank Dr. Biau and Professor Porcher for their comments regarding our recently published article, “Orthopaedic Surgeons Prefer to Participate in Expertise-based Randomized Trials” [1]. We wish to first emphasize we do not view the expertise-based design as a panacea for all challenges related to surgical trials. We do, however, view the expertise-based design as an option that holds substantial promise, under circumstances outlined in our paper, to provide less biased results than the conventional design and to enhance feasibility of conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery. Drs. Biau and Porcher acknowledge differential expertise bias will affect the results of a conventional RCT, but they feel assured statistics can resolve the problem. To avoid confounding and assure optimal statistical adjustment, however, researchers first must establish all of the predictors of outcome to determine what effect is attributed to the surgeons, and then each surgeon must provide a sufficient number of cases in a large multicenter study to determine whether an individual surgeon was contributing an effect. Given that these circumstances are uncommon, we are less confident statistics can resolve the problem. Regarding the simulation described by Drs. Biau and Porcher, it is difficult to know exactly what it shows given the limited information provided. Further, it is uncertain whether the differences between the expertise-based RCT results and the adjusted conventional RCT results, which assume the researchers know all of the points specified above, are clinically important in terms of patient-important outcomes. Regarding the second issue questioning the applicability of the results of an expertise-based RCT, we encourage consideration of the paper written by Dr. Devereaux and colleagues and published in the British Medical Journal [2]. Briefly, in that paper, the authors described the difference between explanatory and pragmatic approaches to clinical trials emphasizing the expertise-based trial can be explanatory (limited to only surgeons with advanced expertise in ideal clinical settings) or pragmatic (including surgeons with at least basic competence in routine clinical settings). The applicability of the results of an expertise-based trial would relate specifically to this feature of the design. Thus, researchers should clearly describe the criteria for defining expertise. This issue of applicability is the same for conventional trials. Regarding Dr. Biau and Professor Porcher’s final point about the feasibility of conducting expertise-based trials, we have knowledge of at least one national multicenter expertise-based trial investigating the effectiveness of an orthopaedic intervention in the shoulder. At one center, patients referred to any of the participating surgeons are seen in a clinic that is run by the fellows to determine eligibility, and if eligible, to describe the study including the study design. In another center, a similar sort of setup is run by a primary care physician with expertise in sports medicine. Approximately 5% of patients screened have refused for the reasons suggested by Drs. Biau and Porcher. It is unknown how many of these patients would have proved eligible for the trial; we can only report that approximately 50% of patients are found ineligible at the time of surgery (usually because of concomitant disease that precludes participation). Thus, the magnitude of the loss of potential participants may be much less. Time will tell whether the experience of researchers participating in other trials is similar to our experience.

Statistical issues in the design and analysis of expertise‐based randomized clinical trials

In order to avoid certain difficulties with the conventional randomized clinical trial design, the expertise-based design has been proposed as an alternative. In the expertise-based design, patients are randomized to clinicians (e.g. surgeons), who then treat all their patients with their preferred intervention. This design recognizes individual clinical preferences and so may reduce the rates of procedural crossovers compared with the conventional design. It may also facilitate recruitment of clinicians, because they are always allowed to deliver their therapy of choice, a feature that may also be attractive to patients.The expertise-based design avoids the possibility of so-called differential expertise bias. If a standard treatment is generally more familiar to clinicians than a new experimental treatment, then in the conventional design, more patients randomized to the standard treatment will have an expert clinician, compared with patients randomized to the experimental treatment. If expertise affects the study outcome, then a biased comparison of the treatment groups will occur.We examined the relative efficiency of estimating the treatment effect in the expertise-based and conventional designs. We recognize that expected patient outcomes may be better in the expertise-based design, which in turn may modify the estimated treatment effect. In particular, a larger treatment effect in the expertise-based design can sometimes offset a higher standard error arising from the confounding of clinician effects with treatments.These concepts are illustrated with data taken from a randomized trial of two alternative surgical techniques for tibial fractures.

Perceptions of core elements for sustainability management systems (SMS)

PurposeThe concepts of sustainable development (SD) and management systems (MS) are finding increasing acceptance in a variety of fields, including academy, politics, and non‐governmental organizations. These concepts are also being used by the general population. This paper aims to describe the perception of different experts by discussing the usefulness of sustainability management systems (SMS) as holistic systems that might integrate environmental, social, and economic elements.Design/methodology/approachThis research was framed by the general systems theory and its nature is totally qualitative and exploratory in order to understand the significant attributes that affect or benefit a management system to reach sustainability. A total of 14 interviews were conducted with several experts around the world. Some are professional persons in sustainability issues in general, and some in environmental, health and safety (EHS) issues in particular.FindingsThe results shows that, although there is a continuous debate on the sustainability approach, several core elements can be addressed for sustainability management systems (SMS). For instance, 71.4 percent of the interviewees agreed that management systems are useful for sustainable development, or at least potentially useful, and 42.9 percent of the experts declared that having a clear understanding of the long‐term economic benefits for the company is an important incentive for their implementation.Research limitations/implicationsInterviews were conducted with a limited number of experts and there was no field verification of claims. Therefore, conclusions derived from these sources depend on the veracity of the information provided by participants. Expert bias may also have an impact on the outcomes of this research.Practical implicationsThe findings provide management systems' practitioners with key elements when sustainability management systems are being created, maintained and evaluated.Originality/valueThe findings are not results from general concepts, but rather elicited from empirical data from fourteen sustainability, and health and safety experts around the world.

The Use of Expertise-Based Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Spinal Manipulation and Acupuncture for Low Back Pain

Systematic review. To assess current use of expertise-based randomization in trials of acupuncture or spinal manipulation for low back pain. The randomized clinical trial is often referred to as the gold standard for providing evidence to guide therapeutic decisions. Random allocation of participants to intervention and control groups theoretically should balance these groups for both known and unknown prognostic factors; however, when randomizing patients to competing interventions in which the clinician's skill is a central aspect of the intervention, (e.g., surgery, chiropractic, rehabilitation) a differential expertise bias may exist if a majority of clinicians participating have greater expertise in 1 of the 2 interventions under evaluation. Randomizing patients to therapists experienced in the interventions under investigation can overcome this bias. We systematically identified relevant randomized controlled trials published up to December 2005. Two independent reviewers extracted data in duplicate using a standardized form. Of 12 eligible trials, none made use of an expertise-based randomized trial design. Investigators designing acupuncture or spinal manipulation trials in which 2 or more active therapies are compared should consider expertise-based randomization to increase the validity and feasibility of their efforts.

Perceiving Others’ Perceptions of Risk

The recent literature providing insights from neuroscience and evolutionary biology into how individuals perceive risky choice situations represents a "second wave" of findings that recapitulates as well as challenges the risk perception research begun in the 1980s, which relied on psychometric survey research. Gleaning insights from the first wave of research that could improve the communication and control of environmental risks has yielded disappointing results. This is a result, in part, of the eagerness of scholars and pundits to posit a chasm between the "rational" and "objective" perceptions of experts, on the one hand, and a lay public that is seen as lurching between "paranoia and neglect" and as insensitive to the magnitude of risks. Interpretations of the psychometric research have suffered from inattention to uncertainty and interindividual variability in risk, to expert biases, and to important aspects of risky choice that were not explored in the first wave of research. Initial signs indicate that neuroscience and evolutionary biology research may fall prey to similar misinterpretations. This article summarizes some of the most intriguing findings of the "second wave" of risk perception research and advances four themes that may help make the new findings less divisive and more useful for improving risk communication and risk management. Continued research into risk perception should perhaps be embedded in a more general theory of public choice in the face of uncertain and variable costs and benefits and with a respect for distributive justice as an important goal in risk management.

The synthesis of qualitative research and evidence-based nursing

Readers of Evidence-Based Nursing will be familiar with “review articles.” They are among the most common types of research abstracted for the journal, and although systematic reviews of randomised controlled...

Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking

Nanotechnology, like other emerging technologies that increasingly characterize the dynamic of our era, makes specific demands on datamining to track and interpret efficiently what is happening, through publications and other scientific output. We here propose and describe a strategy based on an automated lexical modular methodology to overcome rapidly evolving content and classification problems, which may otherwise accommodate poor quality of data and expert bias, with potential dire consequences for interpretation, decision and strategy. The proposed methodology is based on an initial nanostring enriched and screened by eight subfields, automatically identified and defined through the journal inter-citation network density displayed in the initial core nanodataset. Relevant keywords linked to each subfield are then tested for their specificity and relevance before being sequentially incorporated to build a modular query. We then, as a first test, compare the database constructed using this methodology for years 2003 and 2005 with those obtained by other approaches previously used to cover and explore the nanotechnology dynamic. Finally, using the inherent transparency, portablity and replicability of our methodology, we offer, in order to help our initial query evolve and develop, a set of evaluation processes for tests by researchers in the nano field, other scientometric teams and intelligence experts involved in decision-making processes.

Hindsight Bias In Legal Decision Making

Jurors in the U.S. legal system face a difficult challenge; they must ignore negative outcomes, and judge the defendant's pre–outcome actions in a fair way. This method of rejudging the past while trying to ignore certain information, makes jurors vulnerable to hindsight bias. In this article I review a growing body of research that demonstrates the detrimental effects of hindsight bias on legal decision making. Topics examined include: effects of hindsight bias on judgments of legal liability and medical malpractice litigation, the relationship between the severity of the outcome and the size of the hindsight bias effect, the role of visual hindsight bias in the courtroom, and hindsight bias in experts. I end with a review of studies that have attempted to reduce or eliminate hindsight bias in the courtroom.

What Do We Think We Know When We Don't Know Much?

There are three kinds of decision making environments with less than perfect information about the outcome of a decision that vary in the extent to which the information available to decision makers is imperfect. A decision making setting is defined as risky when both the possible outcomes, and the probability of those outcomes, are known before a decision is made. A decision making setting is defined as ambiguous when the possible outcomes of a decision are known before the decision is made, but the probabilities of those different outcomes occurring are not known, when a decision is being made (for survey see Camerer & Weber, 1992). Finally, a decision making setting is defined as uncertain (or sample space ignorance, i.e. Michael Smithson et al, 1999) when neither the possible outcomes, nor the probabilities of those outcomes, are known when a decision is being made. Results of Fox and Tversky (1995) suggest that expert bias can influence individual perception of ambiguous environments. If people feel that they have more expertise about the environment they are more confident about their estimate of the probabilities. One possible implication of this finding is that experts might perceive ambiguous environments as risky more often. This study demonstrates that expert bias influences individuals' perception under sample space ignorance as well, but not the same way as in ambiguous environments, i.e. in such environments experts are less confident then non experts in their estimates of possible outcomes, and experts are more likely then non experts to expect that something completely unexpected might happen.

Expert Bias and Partisanship: A Comparison Between Australia and the Netherlands.

Expert Bias and Partisanship: A Comparison Between Australia and the Netherlands.

Asbestos study suggests bias in experts

Asbestos study suggests bias in experts

The art of conversation: eliciting information from experts through multi-stage communication

We examine the strategic interaction between an informed expert and an uninformed decision maker, extending the analysis of Crawford and Sobel (Econometrica 50 (1982) 1431). We modify their model to allow for more extensive communication between the two parties and show that face-to-face communication between the expert and the uninformed decision maker followed by a written report from the expert leads to improved information transmission. In (almost) all cases, there exists an equilibrium in our modified model that ex ante Pareto dominates all of the equilibria identified by Crawford and Sobel. This remains true even if the expert's bias is so great that in their model no information would be disclosed.