Dataset Information

Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews.

ABSTRACT: Asking unanticipated questions in investigative interviews can elicit differences in the verbal behaviour of truth-tellers and liars: When faced with unanticipated questions, liars give less detailed and consistent responses than truth-tellers. Do such differences in verbal behaviour lead to an improvement in the accuracy of interviewers' veracity judgements? Two empirical studies evaluated the efficacy of the unanticipated questions technique. Experiment 1 compared two types of unanticipated questions (questions regarding the planning of a task and questions regarding the specific spatial and temporal details associated with the task), assessing the veracity judgements of interviewers and verbal content of interviewees' responses. Experiment 2 assessed veracity judgements of independent observers. Overall, the results provide little support for the technique. For interviewers, unanticipated questions failed to improve veracity judgement accuracy above chance. Reality monitoring analysis revealed qualitatively distinct information in the responses to the two unanticipated question types, though little distinction between the responses of truth-tellers and liars. Accuracy for observers was greater when judging transcripts of unanticipated questions, and this effect was stronger for spatial and temporal questions than planning questions. The benefits of unanticipated questioning appear limited to post-interview situations. Furthermore, the type of unanticipated question affects both the type of information gathered and the ability to detect deceit.

SUBMITTER: Parkhouse T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6285978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Dry eye is a common ocular surface condition with significant influence on patient quality of life and societal economic burden. There is an urgent need to prioritize new research for dry eye. Objective:To identify and rank research questions and outcomes important to patients with dry eye. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study was conducted using the following 6 steps: (1) identifying research questions from a previous survey of clinicians who treat patients with dry eye; (2) identifying outcomes from existing research (systematic reviews and their cited clinical trials in the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database of eyes and vision reviews, and National Eye Institute-funded clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov) as of June 13, 2017; (3) identifying a sample of patients with dry eye from the email subscribers to the online newsletter KeratoScoop; (4) and (5) conducting a 2-round Delphi survey of those patients online in November and December 2017, respectively; and (6) designating and ranking questions and outcomes as important. Main Outcomes and Measures:Importance assigned to research questions and outcomes for dry eye. A research question or outcome ranked by at least 75% of patients as 6 or higher on a scale of 0 to 10 was considered important. Results:Among the 420 patients from 15 countries who completed both rounds of the Delphi survey, most were 60 years of age or older (233 [56%]), female (348 [83%]), white (393 [94%]), and of non-Hispanic ethnicity (398 [95%]). Among the 12 questions that clinicians had previously prioritized, patients rated 8 as important. The top 3 questions pertained to effectiveness of patient education, environmental modifications, and topical anti-inflammatory eye drops for dry eye. Among the 109 outcomes identified in existing research on dry eye, patients rated 26 as important. Ten of these 26 were unpopular in existing research, with fewer than 10% of 158 studies reporting these outcomes. Of the 10 most important outcomes, 9 were associated with symptoms or quality of life. The 3 outcomes rated most important by patients were ocular burning or stinging, ocular discomfort, and ocular pain. Conclusions and Relevance:This study identified research questions and outcomes important to patients with dry eye. A considerable gap was noted between outcomes in existing research on dry eye and outcomes patients consider important. Future research on dry eye should consider addressing the important research questions and outcomes identified herein, taking into account the patient perspective.

Project description:ImportanceAn interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point.ObjectiveTo examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury.ExposuresTraumatic brain injury of all severities.Main outcomes and measuresRatings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms.ResultsAmong the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews.

Project description:Rationale: Increasingly, patients are surviving acute respiratory failure (ARF), prompting the need to better understand standardized outcome measures commonly used during ARF follow-up studies. Objectives: Investigate standardized outcome measures (patient-reported physical and mental health measures, and cognitive testing) compared with findings from semistructured, qualitative interviews. Methods: As part of two ARF multicenter follow-up studies, standardized outcome measures were obtained, followed by qualitative evaluation via an in-depth, semistructured interview conducted and coded by two independent researchers. Qualitative interviews revealed the following post-ARF survivorship themes: physical impairment; anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; and cognitive impairment. Scores from standardized measures related to these themes were compared for ARF survivors reporting versus not reporting these themes in their qualitative interviews. Results: Of 59 invited ARF survivors, 48 (81%) completed both standardized outcome measures and qualitative interviews. Participants' median (interquartile range) age was 53 (43-64) years; 54% were female, and 88% were living independently before hospitalization. The two independent reviewers classifying the presence or absence of themes from the qualitative interviews had excellent agreement (??=?0.80). There were significantly worse scores on standardized outcome measures for survivors reporting (vs. not reporting) physical and mental health impairments in their qualitative interviews. However, standardized cognitive test scores did not differ between patients reporting versus not reporting cognitive impairments in their qualitative interviews. Conclusions: These findings support the use of recommended, commonly used standardized outcome measures for physical and mental health impairments in ARF survivorship research. However, caution is needed in interpreting self-reported cognitive function compared with standardized cognitive testing.

Dataset Information

Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets