Background The quality of the decisions reached by data monitoring committees (DMCs) is crucial. The aim of this paper is to identify factors that may make errors more or less likely in small, task-oriented, decision-making expert groups and to consider the implications of these factors for data monitoring committees.
Methods A systematic overview was carried out of reviews of empirical studies of small group processes and decision errors in small, task-oriented decision-making groups in laboratory or real-world settings, published between 1950 and 2002 (n = 57 included reviews).
Results These reviews suggest that a number of factors may increase the likelihood that small groups will make poor and potentially erroneous decisions. The most important of these, in terms of empirical support, are: biased or overly directive leadership, expression of a limited range of opinions during group discussion, poor procedures for identifying or appraising the available information, and presentation of the available information in a way that is likely to result in biased perception of it.
Conclusions The main implications for DMCs relate to membership, the role of the chairperson, the information provided for DMCs and training for DMC members. Selection methods that encourage a degree of diversity within the DMC are recommended. Chairs of DMCs should be experienced members, who have the skills to facilitate a discussion, can manage conflict effectively and can be impartial. Adherence to a prespecified analysis plan is recommended to reduce the risk of error associated with strong evidence or excess information. Training in the use of methodical decision-making procedures, education about the factors that influence decision quality and an opportunity to participate in mock DMC discussions may be of benefit for new members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Ellenberg S, Fleming T, DeMets D. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: A practical perspective. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2002.
2.
2. Grant AM, Sydes M, McLeer S et al. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials (the DAMOCLES study). Health Technol Assessment (in press).
3.
3. Sydes MR, Spiegelhalter DJ, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Parmar MKB and the DAMOCLES group. Systematic review of data monitoring committees in randomised controlled trials. Clin Trials2004; 1: 60–79.
4.
4. Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Jackson JC, Hewison J, Thornton J. Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Health trials in life-threatening conditions. Stat Med2000; 19: 2899–2917.
5.
5. Levine JM, Moreland RL. Small groups. In Gilbert DT, Fiske ST et al. eds. The handbook of social psychology, Volume 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998: 415–469.
6.
6. McGrath JE, Kravitz DA. Group research. Ann Rev Psychol1982; 33: 195–230.
7.
7. Stasser G, Dietz-Uhler B. Collective choice, judgement and problem solving. In Hogg M, Tindale S eds. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002: 31–55.
8.
8. Levine JM, Moreland RL. Progress in small group research. Ann Rev Psychol1990; 41: 585–634.
9.
9. Zander A. The psychology of group processes. Ann Rev Psychol1979; 30: 417–510.
10.
10. Bettenhausen KL. Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. J Mgmt1991; 17: 345–381.
11.
11. Blumberg HH. Group decision making and choice shift. In Hare AP, Blumberg HH et al. eds. Small group research: a handbook. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corp, 1994: 195–210.
12.
12. Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Ann Rev Psychol1996; 47: 307–338.
13.
13. Murphy M, Black N, Lamping D et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess1998; 2: 1–88.
14.
14. Frey LR. Remembering and ‘re-membering’: A history of theory and research on communication and group decision making. In Hirokawa RY, Poole MS eds. Communication and group decision making. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc, 1996: 19–51.
15.
15. Gigone D, Hastie R. Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments. Psychol Bull1997; 121: 149–167.
16.
16. Esser JK. Alive and well after 25 years: a review of groupthink research. Organizational Behav Human Decision Processes1998; 73: 116–141.
17.
17. Neck CP, Moorhead G. Groupthink remodeled: the importance of leadership, time pressure, and methodical decision-making procedures. Human Relations1995; 48: 537–557.
18.
18. Park WW. A review of research on groupthink. J Behav Decision Making1990; 3: 229–245.
19.
19. Whyte G. Recasting Janis's Groupthink Model: the key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behav Human Decision Processes2002; 73: 185–209.
20.
20. Jones PE, Roelofsma PH. The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics2000; 43: 1129–1152.
21.
21. Aldag R, Fuller S. Beyond fiasco – a reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision-processes. Psychol Bull1993; 113: 533–552.
22.
22. Gully S, Devine D, Whitney D. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Res1995; 26: 497–520.
23.
23. Miranda S. Avoidance of groupthink: meeting management using group support systems. Small Group Res1994; 25: 105–136.
24.
24. Mohamed AA, Wiebe FA. Toward a process theory of groupthink. Small Group Res1996; 27: 416–430.
25.
25. Moorhead G, Neck CP, West MS. The tendency toward defective decision making within self-managing teams: the relevance of groupthink for the 21st century. Organizational Behav Human Decision Processes1998; 73: 327–351.
26.
26. Mullen B, Anthony T, Salas E, Driskell J. Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: an integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Res1994; 25: 189–204.
27.
27. Raven BH. Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered. Organizational Behav Human Decision Processes1998; 73: 352–361.
28.
28. Turner ME, Horvitz T. The dilemma of threat: group effectiveness and ineffectiveness under adversity. In Turner ME ed. Groups at work: theory and research. Applied social research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 2001: 445–470.
29.
29. Wekselberg V. Groupthink: a triple fiasco in social psychology. In Tolman CW, Cherry F eds. Problems of theoretical psychology. North York, ON: Captus Ress Inc, 1996: 217–227.
30.
30. Matsatsinis NF, Samaras AP. MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. Eur J Opl Res2001; 130: 414–429.
31.
31. Janis IL, Mann L. Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York: The Free Press, 1977.
32.
32. Bonito JA, Hollingshead AB. Participation in small groups. In Burleson BR, Kunkel AW eds. Communication yearbook 20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1997: 227–261.
33.
33. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Seying R, Pryce J. Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol, Public Policy, and Law2001; 7: 622–727.
34.
34. Gist ME, Locke EA, Taylor MS. Organizational behavior: group structure, process, and effectiveness. J Mgmt1987; 13: 237–257.
35.
35. MacCoun RJ. Experimental research on jury decisionmaking. Science1989; 244: 1046–1050.
36.
36. Tindale RS, Nadler J, Krebel A, Davis JH. Procedural mechanisms and jury behaviour. In Hogg M, Tindale S eds. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002: 576–601.
37.
37. De Dreu CKW, Harinck F, Van Vianen AEM. Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In Cooper CL, Robertson IT eds. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Volume 14. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1999: 369–416.
38.
38. Gill SJ, Menlo A, Keel LP. Antecedents to member participation within small groups: a review of theory and research. J Specialists in Group Work1984; 9: 68–76.
39.
39. Guerin B. Mere presence effects in humans: a review. J Experi Social Psych1986; 22: 38–77.
40.
40. Hollingshead AB. Communication technologies and group research. In Hogg M, Tindale S eds. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002: 558–573.
41.
41. Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M. Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun Res1998; 25: 689–715.
42.
42. Salazar AJ. Understanding the synergistic effects of communication in small groups: making the most out of group member abilities. Small Group Res1995; 26: 169–199.
43.
43. McLeod PL. An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic support of group work: results of a metaanalysis. Human Comput Interaction1992; 7: 257–280.
44.
44. Chertkoff JM, Mesch DJ. Performance under different contingent reward systems: a reconceptualization of the cooperative-competitive-individualistic literature. Advances in Group Processes1997; 14: 1–27.
45.
45. Davies MF. Personality and social characteristics. In Hare AP, Blumberg HH et al. eds. Small group research: a handbook. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corp, 1994: 41–78.
46.
46. Phills JAJ. Reflections on the practical implications of group composition: lessons from a field study of creative and artistic teams. In Gruenfeld DH ed. Composition: research on managing groups and teams, Volume 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc, 1998: 229–254.
47.
47. Shelly RK. Extending interaction theory. Small Group Res1995; 26: 315–327.
48.
48. Tindale SR, Meisenhelder HM, Dykema-Engblade AA, Hogg M. Shared cognition in small groups. In Hogg M, Tindale S eds. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002: 1–29.
49.
49. Martin R, Hewstone M. Conformity and independence in groups: Majorities and minorities. In Hogg MA, Tindale S eds. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002: 209–234.
50.
50. Maass A, Clark RD. Hidden impact of minorities: fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychol Bull1984; 95: 428–450.
51.
51. Griffith J, Vaitkus M. Relating cohesion to stress, strain, disintegration, and performance: an organizing framework. Military Psychol1999; 11: 27–55.
52.
52. Chemers MM. Leadership effectiveness: an integrative review. In Hogg M, Tindale S eds. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002: 376–399.
53.
53. Robertson I, Callinan M. Personality and work behaviour. Eur J Work and Organizational Psychol1998; 7: 321–340.
54.
54. Dukerich JM, Nichols ML, Elm DR, Vollrath DA. Moral reasoning in groups: leaders make a difference. Human Relations1990; 43: 473–493.
55.
55. BarNir A. Can group- and issue-related factors predict choice shift? A meta-analysis of group decisions on life dilemmas. Small Group Res1998; 29: 308–338.
56.
56. Hartman SJ, Nelson BH. Group decision making in the negative domain. Group and Organization Management1996; 21: 146–162.
57.
57. Isenberg DJ. Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Personality and Social Psychol1986; 50: 1141–1151.
58.
58. Larson JR. Modeling the entry of shared and unshared information into group discussion: a review and BASIC language computer program. Small Group Res1997; 28: 454–479.
59.
59. Kagehiro DK. Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychol Sci1990; 1: 194–200.
60.
60. George JF, Jessup L. Groups over time: what are we really studying?Int J Human Comput Studies1997; 47: 497–511.
61.
61. Pavitt C. What (little) we know about formal group discussion procedures: a review of relevant research. Small Group Res1993; 24: 217–235.
62.
62. Postmes T, Lea M. Social processes and group decision making: anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics2000; 43: 1252–1274.
63.
63. Honeywell-Johnson JA, Dickinson AM. Small group incentives: a review of the literature. J Organizational Behav Mgmt1999; 19: 89–120.
