1
|
Blazey P, Scott A, Ardern CL, Davis JC, Whittaker JL, Losciale JM, Khan KM. Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review. Br J Sports Med 2024; 58:733-744. [PMID: 38777386 PMCID: PMC11228197 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-107552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development. DESIGN Scoping review. DATA SOURCES We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered. RESULTS Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Blazey
- Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Alex Scott
- Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Clare L Ardern
- Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jennifer C Davis
- Applied Health Economics Laboratory, Faculty of Management, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jackie L Whittaker
- Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Justin M Losciale
- Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Karim M Khan
- Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cavazos JG, Jeckeln G, O'Toole AJ. Collaboration to improve cross-race face identification: Wisdom of the multi-racial crowd? Br J Psychol 2023; 114:838-853. [PMID: 37093063 PMCID: PMC10592228 DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12657] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2022] [Accepted: 02/27/2023] [Indexed: 04/25/2023]
Abstract
Face identification is particularly prone to error when individuals identify people of a race other than their own - a phenomenon known as the other-race effect (ORE). Here, we show that collaborative "wisdom-of-crowds" decision-making substantially improves face identification accuracy for own- and other-race faces over individuals working alone. In two online experiments, East Asian and White individuals recognized own- and other-race faces as individuals and as part of a collaborative dyad. Collaboration never proved more beneficial in a social setting than when individual identification decisions were combined computationally. The reliable benefit of non-social collaboration may stem from its ability to avoid the potential negative outcomes of group diversity such as conflict. Consistent with this benefit, the racial diversity of collaborators did not influence either general or race-specific face identification accuracy. Our findings suggest that collaboration between two individuals is a promising strategy for improving cross-race face identification that may translate effectively into forensic and eyewitness settings.
Collapse
|
3
|
Novaes Tump A, Wolf M, Krause J, Kurvers RHJM. Individuals fail to reap the collective benefits of diversity because of over-reliance on personal information. J R Soc Interface 2019; 15:rsif.2018.0155. [PMID: 29769409 DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2018] [Accepted: 04/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Collective intelligence refers to the ability of groups to outperform individuals in solving cognitive tasks. Although numerous studies have demonstrated this effect, the mechanisms underlying collective intelligence remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate diversity in cue beliefs as a mechanism potentially promoting collective intelligence. In our experimental study, human groups observed a sequence of cartoon characters, and classified each character as a cooperator or defector based on informative and uninformative cues. Participants first made an individual decision. They then received social information consisting of their group members' decisions before making a second decision. Additionally, individuals reported their beliefs about the cues. Our results showed that individuals made better decisions after observing the decisions of others. Interestingly, individuals developed different cue beliefs, including many wrong ones, despite receiving identical information. Diversity in cue beliefs, however, did not predict collective improvement. Using simulations, we found that diverse collectives did provide better social information, but that individuals failed to reap those benefits because they relied too much on personal information. Our results highlight the potential of belief diversity for promoting collective intelligence, but suggest that this potential often remains unexploited because of over-reliance on personal information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan Novaes Tump
- Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
| | - Max Wolf
- Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany
| | - Jens Krause
- Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany.,Faculty of Life Science, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut, Humboldt University, Invalidenstraße 42, 10115 Berlin, Germany
| | - Ralf H J M Kurvers
- Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany.,Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pogson M. Simulation of Invertebrate Aggregation Shows the Importance of Stable Personality over Diversity in Consensus Decision-Making. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0165082. [PMID: 27755591 PMCID: PMC5068703 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2016] [Accepted: 10/05/2016] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Aggregation of many species of invertebrate is an example of a consensus decision, the success of which is central to survival. Personality is a stable form of behavioural diversity which has been observed in the aggregation process, but neither the reasons for its stability nor its effects on consensus decisions are well understood. By using an agent-based model of invertebrate aggregation, it is found that diverse personalities have only limited benefits to the experimental consensus decision-making process, but may have a more valuable role in natural settings. Importantly, although certain personalities may ostensibly have potential drawbacks at the individual level, such as choosing to rest in unfavourable places, all individuals are likely to benefit from maintaining a constant personality, which promotes group stability. These findings help to improve understanding of consensus decision-making and the prevalence of stable personality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Pogson
- Department of Applied Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, James Parsons Building, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
McMahon K, Ruggeri A, Kämmer JE, Katsikopoulos KV. Beyond Idea Generation: The Power of Groups in Developing Ideas. CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 2016. [DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
7
|
Curşeu PL, Jansen RJG, Chappin MMH. Decision rules and group rationality: cognitive gain or standstill? PLoS One 2013; 8:e56454. [PMID: 23451050 PMCID: PMC3579831 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2012] [Accepted: 01/09/2013] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent research in group cognition points towards the existence of collective cognitive competencies that transcend individual group members’ cognitive competencies. Since rationality is a key cognitive competence for group decision making, and group cognition emerges from the coordination of individual cognition during social interactions, this study tests the extent to which collaborative and consultative decision rules impact the emergence of group rationality. Using a set of decision tasks adapted from the heuristics and biases literature, we evaluate rationality as the extent to which individual choices are aligned with a normative ideal. We further operationalize group rationality as cognitive synergy (the extent to which collective rationality exceeds average or best individual rationality in the group), and we test the effect of collaborative and consultative decision rules in a sample of 176 groups. Our results show that the collaborative decision rule has superior synergic effects as compared to the consultative decision rule. The ninety one groups working in a collaborative fashion made more rational choices (above and beyond the average rationality of their members) than the eighty five groups working in a consultative fashion. Moreover, the groups using a collaborative decision rule were closer to the rationality of their best member than groups using consultative decision rules. Nevertheless, on average groups did not outperformed their best member. Therefore, our results reveal how decision rules prescribing interpersonal interactions impact on the emergence of collective cognitive competencies. They also open potential venues for further research on the emergence of collective rationality in human decision-making groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Petru Lucian Curşeu
- Department of Organization Studies & Center for Innovation Research, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|