ArticleScientific reports2024
An ecological assessment of decision-making under risk and ambiguity through the virtual serious game Kalliste Decision Task.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional methods for evaluating decision-making provide valuable insights yet may fall short in capturing the complexity of this cognitive capacity, often providing insufficient for the multifaceted nature of decisions. The Kalliste Decision Task (KDT) is introduced as a comprehensive, ecologically valid tool aimed at bridging this gap, offering a holistic perspective on decision-making. In our study, 81 participants completed KDT alongside established tasks and questionnaires, including the Mixed Gamble Task (MGT), Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), and Stimulating & Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S&IRQ). They also completed the User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ). The results showed excellent usability, with high USEQ scores, highlighting the user-friendliness of KDT. Importantly, KDT outcomes showed significant correlations with classical decision-making variables, shedding light on participants' risk attitudes (S&IRQ), rule-based decision-making (MGT), and performance in ambiguous contexts (IGT). Moreover, hierarchical clustering analysis of KDT scores categorized participants into three distinct profiles, revealing significant differences between them on classical measures. The findings highlight KDT as a valuable tool for assessing decision-making, addressing limitations of traditional methods, and offering a comprehensive, ecologically valid approach that aligns with the complexity and heterogeneity of real-world decision-making, advancing research and providing insights for understanding and assessing decision-making across multiple domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.