Epistemic Beliefs in Science-A Systematic Integration of Evidence From Multiple Studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w.
SUBMITTER: Schiefer J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8853396 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the breadth of data relevant to environmental health sciences (e.g., human, animal, and mechanistic studies). METHODS: The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) adapted guidance from authorities on systematic-review and sought advice during development of the OHAT Approach through consultation with technical experts in systematic review and human health assessments, as well as scientific advisory groups and the public. The method was refined by considering expert and public comments and through application to case studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Here we present a seven-step framework for systematic review and evidence integration for reaching hazard identification conclusions: 1) problem formulation and protocol development, 2) search for and select studies for inclusion, 3) extract data from studies, 4) assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies, 5) rate the confidence in the body of evidence, 6) translate the confidence ratings into levels of evidence, and 7) integrate the information from different evidence streams (human, animal, and "other relevant data" including mechanistic or in vitro studies) to develop hazard identification conclusions. CONCLUSION: The principles of systematic review can be successfully applied to environmental health questions to provide greater objectivity and transparency to the process of developing conclusions.
| S-EPMC4080517 | biostudies-other
Project description:Widespread misperceptions undermine citizens' decision-making ability. Conclusions based on falsehoods and conspiracy theories are by definition flawed. This article demonstrates that individuals' epistemic beliefs-beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how one comes to know-have important implications for perception accuracy. The present study uses a series of large, nationally representative surveys of the U.S. population to produce valid and reliable measures of three aspects of epistemic beliefs: reliance on intuition for factual beliefs (Faith in Intuition for facts), importance of consistency between empirical evidence and beliefs (Need for evidence), and conviction that "facts" are politically constructed (Truth is political). Analyses confirm that these factors complement established predictors of misperception, substantively increasing our ability to explain both individuals' propensity to engage in conspiracist ideation, and their willingness to embrace falsehoods about high-profile scientific and political issues. Individuals who view reality as a political construct are significantly more likely to embrace falsehoods, whereas those who believe that their conclusions must hew to available evidence tend to hold more accurate beliefs. Confidence in the ability to intuitively recognize truth is a uniquely important predictor of conspiracist ideation. Results suggest that efforts to counter misperceptions may be helped by promoting epistemic beliefs emphasizing the importance of evidence, cautious use of feelings, and trust that rigorous assessment by knowledgeable specialists is an effective guard against political manipulation.
| S-EPMC5603156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pre-service teachers tend to devalue general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) as a valid source for deriving successful teaching practices. The present study investigated beliefs about knowledge sources and epistemic beliefs as predictors for students' perceived value of GPK. Three pre-registered hypotheses were tested. We expected beliefs that GPK originates from scientific sources to entail a devaluation of GPK (Hypothesis 1). Concerning epistemic beliefs, we expected absolute beliefs to positively, and multiplistic beliefs to negatively predict pre-service teachers' perceived practical value of GPK (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we expected relationships between epistemic beliefs and pre-service teachers' perceived practical value of GPK to be confounded by epistemic trustworthiness, perceived topic-specific consistency and topic-specific familiarity (Hypothesis 3). In a study using a split plot design, 365 pre-service teachers were presented with four texts on different educational research topics. For each topic, three text versions were constructed. Even though they were invariant in content, these versions varied in a way that the results were allegedly generated by a practitioner, an expert or by means of a scientific study. Unexpectedly, results showed that research findings allegedly generated by means of a scientific study were associated with a higher perceived value of (topic-specific) GPK for practice (Hypothesis 1). As expected, the perceived value of GPK for practice was predicted by topic-specific multiplism and domain-specific absolutism (Hypothesis 2). These predictive effects were confounded by expertise evaluations of the source and the consistency of prior beliefs with the presented research results (Hypothesis 3). In summary, our results suggest that source beliefs might not be responsible for the devaluation of GPK, but that beliefs on the nature and structure of GPK (i.e., epistemic beliefs) might play an even more important role in this respect. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
| S-EPMC5608309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextExpectations about the future (future expectancies) are important determinants of psychological well-being among cancer patients, but the strategies patients use to maintain positive and cope with negative expectancies are incompletely understood.ObjectivesTo obtain preliminary evidence on the potential role of one strategy for managing future expectancies: the adoption of "epistemic beliefs" in fundamental limits to medical knowledge.MethodsA sample of 1307 primarily advanced-stage cancer patients participating in a genomic tumor testing study in community oncology practices completed measures of epistemic beliefs, positive future expectancies, and mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Descriptive and linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between these factors and test two hypotheses: 1) epistemic beliefs affirming fundamental limits to medical knowledge ("fallibilistic epistemic beliefs") are associated with positive future expectancies and mental HRQOL, and 2) positive future expectancies mediate this association.ResultsParticipants reported relatively high beliefs in limits to medical knowledge (M = 2.94, s.d.=.67) and positive future expectancies (M = 3.01, s.d.=.62) (range 0-4), and relatively low mental and physical HRQOL. Consistent with hypotheses, fallibilistic epistemic beliefs were associated with positive future expectancies (b = 0.11, SE=.03, P< 0.001) and greater mental HRQOL (b = 0.99, SE=.34, P = 0.004); positive expectancies also mediated the association between epistemic beliefs and mental HRQOL (Sobel Z=4.27, P<0.001).ConclusionsEpistemic beliefs in limits to medical knowledge are associated with positive future expectancies and greater mental HRQOL; positive expectancies mediate the association between epistemic beliefs and HRQOL. More research is needed to confirm these relationships and elucidate their causal mechanisms.
| S-EPMC8930513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Learning can be difficult for students due to incorrect prior knowledge, or misconceptions, interfering with the acquisition of new knowledge. Conceptual change refers to the process of replacing such misconceptions with new and accurate knowledge. The factors associated with conceptual change are currently under debate. The present study attempts to replicate previous investigations of how text style and epistemic beliefs impact conceptual change, and extends this work by investigating how those factors differentially facilitate conceptual change within participants. 157 college students completed a two-part, within participants study in which they completed pretests, read passages addressing a misconception, completed posttests, and were assessed on their epistemic beliefs. Text style (expository vs. refutation) and two dimensions of epistemic beliefs (texture and variability) did not directly impact pre-to-posttest changes in performance. However, interactions between text type, texture, and variability were related to changes in performance.
| S-EPMC6726218 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based medicine has been regarded as a prerequisite for ensuring health care quality. The increase in health care professionals' adoption of web-based medical information and the lack of awareness of alternative access to evidence-based online resources suggest the need for an investigation of their information-searching behaviors of using evidence-based online medical databases.ObjectiveThe main purposes of this study were to (1) modify and validate the internet-specific epistemic beliefs in medicine (ISEBM) questionnaire and (2) explore the associations between health care professionals' demographics, ISEBM, and intention to use evidence-based online medical databases for clinical practice.MethodsHealth care professionals in a university-affiliated teaching hospital were surveyed using the ISEBM questionnaire. The partial least squares-structural equation modeling was conducted to analyze the reliability and validity of ISEBM. Furthermore, the structural model was analyzed to examine the possible linkages between health professionals' demographics, ISEBM, and intention to utilize the evidence-based online medical databases for clinical practice.ResultsA total of 273 health care professionals with clinical working experience were surveyed. The results of the measurement model analysis indicated that all items had significant loadings ranging from 0.71 to 0.92 with satisfactory composite reliability values ranging from 0.87 to 0.94 and average variance explained values ranging from 0.70 to 0.84. The results of the structural relationship analysis revealed that the source of internet-based medical knowledge (path coefficient -0.26, P=.01) and justification of internet-based knowing in medicine (path coefficient 0.21, P=.001) were correlated with the intention to use evidence-based online medical databases. However, certainty and simplicity of internet-based medical knowledge were not. In addition, gender (path coefficient 0.12, P=.04) and academic degree (path coefficient 0.15, P=.004) were associated with intention to use evidence-based online medical databases for clinical practice.ConclusionsAdvancing health care professionals' ISEBM regarding source and justification may encourage them to retrieve valid medical information through evidence-based medical databases. Moreover, providing support for specific health care professionals (ie, females, without a master's degree) may promote their intention to use certain databases for clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8074852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper offers a comparative evaluation of the scientific impact of a citizen science program in ecology, ''Vigie-Nature", managed by the French National Museum of Natural History. Vigie-Nature consists of a national network of amateur observatories dedicated to a participative study of biodiversity in France that has been running for the last twenty years. We collected 123 articles published by Vigie-Nature in international peer-reviewed journals between 2007 and 2019, and computed the yearly amount of citations of these articles between 0-12 years post-publication. We then compared this body of citations with the number of yearly citations relative to the ensemble of the articles published in ecology and indexed in the ''Web of Science" data-base. Using a longitudinal data analysis, we could observe that the yearly number of citations of the Vigie-Nature articles is significantly higher than that of the other publications in the same domain. Furthermore, this excess of citations tends to steadily grow over time: Vigie-Nature publications are about 1.5 times more cited 3 years after publication, and 3 times more cited 11 years post-publication. These results suggest that large-scale biodiversity citizen science projects are susceptible to reach a high epistemic impact, when managed in specific ways which need to be clarified through further investigations.
| S-EPMC8504750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study undertakes an analysis of the conceptualization of gender identity in neuroscientific studies of (trans)gender identity that contrast the brains of cisgender and transgender participants. The analysis focuses on instances of epistemic injustice that combine scientific deficiencies and the exclusion of relevant bodies of knowledge. The results of a content analysis show how the ignoring of biosocial, developmental, mosaicist, contextualist, and depathologizing approaches leads to internal conceptual inconsistencies, hermeneutical deficiencies and the upholding of questionable paradigms in the research field. Interviews with researchers involved in these brain studies reveal targeted and diffuse forms of testimonial injustice against alternative approaches, promoted by the hierarchical arrangements of research teams in combination with the careerist and economic logic of research. The analysis points to the exclusion of critical epistemologies of science and the historical oppression of trans people as epistemic agents as the underlying hermeneutical deficiencies.
| S-EPMC8022811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:More than 1000 candidate-gene association studies on genetic susceptibility to lung cancer have been published over the last two decades but with few consensuses for the likely culprits. We conducted a comprehensive review, meta-analysis and evidence strength evaluation of published candidate-gene association studies in lung cancer up to November 1, 2015. The epidemiological credibility of cumulative evidence was assessed using the Venice criteria. A total of 1018 publications with 2910 genetic variants in 754 different genes or chromosomal loci were eligible for inclusion. Main meta-analyses were performed on 246 variants in 138 different genes. Twenty-two variants from 21 genes (APEX1 rs1130409 and rs1760944, ATM rs664677, AXIN2 rs2240308, CHRNA3 rs6495309, CHRNA5 rs16969968, CLPTM1L rs402710, CXCR2 rs1126579, CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs6413432, ERCC1 rs11615, ERCC2 rs13181, FGFR4 rs351855, HYKK rs931794, MIR146A rs2910164, MIR196A2 rs11614913, OGG1 rs1052133, PON1 rs662, REV3L rs462779, SOD2 rs4880, TERT rs2736098, and TP53 rs1042522) showed significant associations with lung cancer susceptibility with strong cumulative epidemiological evidence. No significant associations with lung cancer risk were found for other 150 variants in 98 genes; however, seven variants demonstrated strong cumulative evidence. Our findings provided the most updated summary of genetic risk effects on lung cancer and would help inform future research direction.
| S-EPMC5567126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The present study investigates epistemic beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing) and prosocial values as predictors of COVID-19 vaccination intentions. As a first hypothesis, we posit that beliefs in justification by authority will positively relate to vaccination intentions. Second, we expect a positive relationship between prosocial values and vaccination intentions. Third, we hypothesize that beliefs in justification by authority moderate the relationship between prosocial values and vaccination intentions, so that the positive correlation between prosocial values and vaccination intentions becomes stronger with increasing beliefs in justification by authority. Hypotheses were tested in a sample of N = 314 German university students, a group with rather high mobility, who, when vaccinated, will increase the chance of attaining herd immunity. Hypotheses were tested using correlational and multiple regression analyses. Results revealed a highly significant positive relationship between justification by authority and vaccination intentions, whereas both hypotheses that included prosocial values did not yield significant results. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that the relationship between justification by authority and vaccination intentions was mediated by beliefs in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Furthermore, significant negative relationships were found between personal justification and vaccination intentions as well as between justification by multiple sources and vaccination intentions. These results highlight the crucial role of science and public health communication in fostering vaccination intentions regarding COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8268677 | biostudies-literature