This paper discusses what can ensure the performance of judgment studies with an information design that integrates economics of medical systems, in the context of digitalization of healthcare. It is part of a series of 5 methodological papers on statistical procedures and problems to implement judgment research designs and decision models, especially to address cost of care, and ways to measure conversation on cost of care between physicians and patients, with unstructured data such as economic narratives to complement billing and financial information (e.g. cost cognitive cues in conjoint or reversed conjoint designs). The paper discusses how congruence of tasks can increase the reliability of data. It uses some results of two Meta reviews of judgment studies in different fields of applications: psychology, business, medical sciences and education. It compares tests for congruence in judgment studies and efficiency tests in econometric studies.
MurphySA., When ``digoxin use'' is not the same as ``digoxin us: lessons from the AFFIRM trial. EUR Heart J34 (2013): 1485-1467.
2.
HuttinC., A contribution to the Debate on Coherence versus Correspondence: examples of incoherencies in Regulated Medical Markets. The Brunswik Society Newsletter, 2013.
3.
SkinnerJ. and StaigerD., Technology adoption from hybrid corn to betablockers. NBER, March, 2005.
4.
GrossmanM., The demand for Health. NBER, 1972.
5.
HausmanJ., Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. M. Journal of Economic Perspectives26 (2012): 43-56.
6.
CarsonRT., Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available. Journal of Economic Perspectives26(4) (2012): 27-42.
7.
KanhemanD. and KnestchJ., Contingent valuation and the value of Public Goods: Reply. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22: 90-94.
8.
DiamondPA. and HausmanJA., Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number. Journal of Economic Perspectives8(4) (Fall 1994): 45-64.
9.
HausmanJA., Does Contingent Valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. Chapter II, from Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment2(20) (1993): 41-89.
10.
DiamondPA., Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30 (1996): 337-347.
11.
DesvougesW., MathewsK. and TrainK., Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecological economics84: 121-128.
12.
HuttinC., Transcript from focus group on physicians on asthma and economic topics; unpublished, Boston, 2006.
13.
HuttinC., The Application of a reversed Conjoint Analysis on Physician' Cost Sensitivity a Response to Professor J Hausman on Contingent Valuation, Contribution from a Stated Preference Study in Health Care Research. J Pol Sci Pub Aff2(1) (2014): 1-7. Doi: 1000112.
14.
KaufmannE., ReipsUD. and WittmanWW., A Critical Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies in Human Judgment and Decision Making. Plos One8(12) (5 December 2013): e83528. www.plosone.org.
15.
TapeTG., Coherence and correspondence in medicine. Judgment and Decision Making4(2) (March 2009): 134-140.
16.
BrehmerB., Cognitive dependence on additive and configural cue-criterion relations. American Journal of Psychology82 (1969): 490-503.
17.
BrehmerB., Note on Clinical Judgment and the Formal Characteristics of clinical tasks. Psychological Bulletin83(5) (1976): 778-782.
18.
HuttinC., Pitch for cost sensitivity simulators, the case of Diabetes Type II. Eupha conference proceedings, Milano, 2015.
19.
HammondK., Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review62 (1955): 255-262.
20.
HammondKR., HurschC. and ToddFJ., Analyzing the component of clinical inference. Psychological Review71(6) (1964): 438-46.
21.
HuttinC., New cost sensitivity measures to assess impact of reimbursement systems on physicians'treatment choices, based on an adaptation of the Lens model on cost related cues. 20th Annual meeting, Brunswik Society meeting, Minneapolis, 2004.
22.
HuttinC., New cost sensitivity index based on cognitive cost cues for an application of the Lens model on physicians'choices, Brunswik society meeting, Toronto, 2005.
23.
AndersonJR., The architecture of cognition (ACT models). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.
24.
HydnyardLJ. and KreuterMW., Using narratives communication as a tool for health behavior change: a conceptual, theoretical and empirical overview. Health Education and Behavior34(5) (October 2007): 777-792.
25.
HuttinC., A European Yakkasa. How reimbursement policies can adapt to new synergies and open boundaries in science? Medetel proceedings (Luxembourg), 2015.
26.
HausmanJ. and McFaddenD., Specification tests for the Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica52(5) (Sep 1984): 1219-1240.
27.
KarelaiaN. and HogarthRM., Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta Analysis of Lens Model Studies. Psychological Bulletin134(3) (2008): 404-426.
28.
Tucker LedyardR., A Suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and by Hammond, Hursch and Todd. Psychological Review71(6) (Nov 1964): 528-530.
