91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23465071)
1. The measurement of subjective probability: evaluating the sensitivity and accuracy of various scales.
Haase N; Renkewitz F; Betsch C
Risk Anal; 2013 Oct; 33(10):1812-28. PubMed ID: 23465071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study.
Woloshin S; Schwartz LM; Byram S; Fischhoff B; Welch HG
Med Decis Making; 2000; 20(3):298-307. PubMed ID: 10929852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Caregiver burden in relatives of persons with schizophrenia: an overview of measure instruments].
Reine G; Lancon C; Simeoni MC; Duplan S; Auquier P
Encephale; 2003; 29(2):137-47. PubMed ID: 14567165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The Binary Additivity of Subjective Probability Does not Indicate the Binary Complementarity of Perceived Certainty.
Windschitl PD
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process; 2000 Mar; 81(2):195-225. PubMed ID: 10706814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An evaluation of clinicians' subjective prior probability estimates.
Dolan JG; Bordley DR; Mushlin AI
Med Decis Making; 1986; 6(4):216-23. PubMed ID: 3773651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessment and statistical modeling of the relationship between remotely sensed aerosol optical depth and PM2.5 in the eastern United States.
Paciorek CJ; Liu Y;
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2012 May; (167):5-83; discussion 85-91. PubMed ID: 22838153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Event-tree analysis with imprecise probabilities.
You X; Tonon F
Risk Anal; 2012 Feb; 32(2):330-44. PubMed ID: 22053780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences.
Price M; Cameron R; Butow P
Patient Educ Couns; 2007 Dec; 69(1-3):121-8. PubMed ID: 17905553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Surgical quality improvement: a simplified method to apply national standards to pediatric trauma care.
Leaphart CL; Graham D; Pieper P; Celso BG; Tepas JJ
J Pediatr Surg; 2009 Jan; 44(1):156-9. PubMed ID: 19159735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature.
Visschers VH; Meertens RM; Passchier WW; de Vries NN
Risk Anal; 2009 Feb; 29(2):267-87. PubMed ID: 19000070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing the standard rating scale and the magnifier scale for assessing risk perceptions.
Gurmankin AD; Helweg-Larsen M; Armstrong K; Kimmel SE; Volpp KG
Med Decis Making; 2005; 25(5):560-70. PubMed ID: 16160211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. On the provenance of judgments of conditional probability.
Zhao J; Shah A; Osherson D
Cognition; 2009 Oct; 113(1):26-36. PubMed ID: 19665110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Affective and cognitive factors influencing sensitivity to probabilistic information.
Tyszka T; Sawicki P
Risk Anal; 2011 Nov; 31(11):1832-45. PubMed ID: 21689126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. How well do commonly used data presentation formats support comparative effectiveness evaluations?
Dolan JG; Qian F; Veazie PJ
Med Decis Making; 2012; 32(6):840-50. PubMed ID: 22618998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Glaucoma diagnostics.
Geimer SA
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities.
Cuite CL; Weinstein ND; Emmons K; Colditz G
Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(3):377-84. PubMed ID: 18480036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pressure ulcer risk assessment in critical care: interrater reliability and validity studies of the Braden and Waterlow scales and subjective ratings in two intensive care units.
Kottner J; Dassen T
Int J Nurs Stud; 2010 Jun; 47(6):671-7. PubMed ID: 20003975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The accuracy of patients' judgments of disease probability and test sensitivity and specificity.
Hamm RM; Smith SL
J Fam Pract; 1998 Jul; 47(1):44-52. PubMed ID: 9673608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents' Evaluations.
Bruine de Bruin W; Carman KG
Risk Anal; 2018 Oct; 38(10):2128-2143. PubMed ID: 30114338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Violations of coherence in subjective probability: a representational and assessment processes account.
Mandel DR
Cognition; 2008 Jan; 106(1):130-56. PubMed ID: 17300773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
