Theory of Mind as a Correlate of Bystanders' Reasoning About Intergroup Bullying of Syrian Refugee Youth

The current study examined how ingroup and outgroup Theory of Mind (ToM) predicts children’s and adolescents’ reasoning for their acceptability judgments of intergroup bullying of Syrian refugee peers and group support of intergroup bullying. Participants included 587 Turkish middle (n = 372, M_age = 12.19, SD = 1.01; 208 girls) and high school (n = 215, M_age = 14.81, SD = 0.97; 142 girls) students. Participants read a bias-based bullying story with a Syrian refugee peer targeted by an ingroup Turkish peer. Then, participants rated the acceptability of bullying and group support of bullying and were presented with a reasoning question (Why?) after each acceptability question (bullying and group support of bullying). Reasoning codes included Fairness, Refugee Status/War, Prejudice and Discrimination, Harm, Prescriptive Norms, Group Functioning, and Relationship with the Bully. Participants’ ingroup and outgroup ToM abilities (measured using the Strange Stories) were evaluated as predictors of reasoning. Results documented that middle school students were more likely to attribute mental states to their ingroup members compared to outgroup members while high school students’ ToM performance did not differ across contexts. Further, the more unacceptable participants judged bullying to be, the more they reasoned about the bullying by referencing fairness, refugee status, discrimination, and harm. Results also documented that ingroup and outgroup ToM were positively related to attribution to fairness and participants’ usage of multiple reasoning judgments while only outgroup ToM was a significant predictor of reasoning around refugee status/war, discrimination, and prejudice. The findings provide implications for intervention programs that tackle intergroup bullying by examining bystanders’ social cognitive skills in a specific context.

Pilot evaluation of a novel observational tool for collaboration and communication within multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs)

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) to facilitate patient care, little evidence exists that MDTs improve patient survival or impact care. Research into MDT function and outcome is limited. This pilot study looks to validate a novel tool developed to assess MDT functioning.

METHODS

A tool was developed with predefined Likert behaviour stems in the areas of structure, communication and collaboration. The tool was evaluated in nine MDTs by three independent observers and included participant evaluation. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC); Student's t-test was used to calculate significance in participant evaluation and matched observations.

RESULTS

The tool was used to evaluate 9 MDTs, discussing 133 cases. The overall ICC for the three coders was 0.935; for each MDT: 0.776-0.917. The inter-rater reliability for each MDT observation ranged from 0.245-0.923; the majority with an ICC >0.8. No significant difference was noted between participant evaluation and observer response.

DISCUSSION

MDTs provide a means of coordinating complex care for patients. This tool provides a means of evaluating group interaction within MDTs and is designed for use by different medical personnel. The pilot study has shown promising ICC; further evaluation is needed using a broader group of MDTs and including case complexity and outcome.