Search

Your search keyword '"Haisfield, Lisa"' showing total 6 results
Start Over Author "Haisfield, Lisa"
6 results on '"Haisfield, Lisa"'

1. Establishing Standards of Best Practice in Automated Scoring. ACT Research. Technical Brief

Author

ACT, Inc., Wood, Scott, Yao, Erin, Haisfield, Lisa, and Lottridge, Susan

Abstract

For assessment professionals who are also automated scoring (AS) professionals, there is no single set of standards of best practice. This paper reviews the assessment and AS literature to identify key standards of best practice and ethical behavior for AS professionals and codifies those standards in a single resource. Having a unified set of AS standards is important for several reasons. First, given that AS is an emerging technology in educational assessment, it is important to establish guidelines of good practice for professionals and stakeholders learning to use this new technology. Second, due to the wide variety of professionals involved in AS technology development (e.g., psychometricians, linguists, data scientists, and computer programmers), a unified set of standards would guide these diverse professionals toward common objectives. Third, and most importantly, having standards for which stakeholders can hold AS professionals accountable can provide stakeholders with greater confidence in the use of AS. This report describes the methods used to identify, review, and summarize the standards and recommendations in the AS literature. This is followed by a summary of 10 important, high-level standards for AS professionals. Each standard is supported by exemplar citations from the AS literature. A summary and references list appear at the end of the report.

Published
2021

3. Physicians’ Attitudes About Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening

Author

Davis, Kimberly, Haisfield, Lisa, Dorfman, Caroline, Krist, Alex, and Taylor, Kathryn L.

Subjects
Male, Attitude of Health Personnel, Health Care Surveys, Decision Making, District of Columbia, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Pilot Projects, Patient Participation, Article, Early Detection of Cancer, Physicians, Primary Care
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening (PCS) is recommended for physicians and patients due to the uncertainty regarding the risks and benefits of screening. METHODS: We assessed primary care physicians’ attitudes and specific factors that may influence the SDM process, including level of training and practice setting. Participants included academic clinicians (n=16), interns/residents (n=84) and community clinicians (n=35). Physicians completed a 26-item survey that assessed attitudes about the SDM process for PCS. RESULTS: More physicians endorsed SDM (47.4%) or the patient deciding (35.6%), while few physicians wanted to decide for their patients about screening. However, 54.8% endorsed an annual PSA as the standard of care. Most felt that decisions should be based on full disclosure of the risks and benefits of testing (93.3%), and few believed that the sensitivity and specificity of the PSA was adequate (36.6%). Across all physicians, lack of time, competing health demands, malpractice fears, and patient interest were all commonly cited as potential factors that influence the SDM process. Compared to academic clinicians and interns/residents, community clinicians were more likely to endorse annual screening, to be concerned about malpractice, and to agree that PSA sensitivity and specificity are acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate physician, patient and systemic factors regarding the PCS decision. Further effort is needed to overcome the barriers of engaging patients in SDM if we want to truly promote effective SDM for PCS, as espoused by national guidelines.

Published
2011

6. Physicians' attitudes about shared decision making for prostate cancer screening.

Author

Davis K, Haisfield L, Dorfman C, Krist A, and Taylor KL

Subjects
Attitude of Health Personnel, Decision Making, District of Columbia, Early Detection of Cancer psychology, Health Care Surveys, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Prostatic Neoplasms prevention & control, Early Detection of Cancer standards, Patient Participation, Physicians, Primary Care psychology, Prostatic Neoplasms diagnosis
Abstract

Background and Objectives: Shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening (PCS) is recommended for physicians and patients due to the uncertainty regarding the risks and benefits of screening., Methods: We assessed primary care physicians' attitudes and specific factors that may influence the SDM process, including level of training and practice setting. Participants included academic clinicians (n=16), interns/residents (n=84) and community clinicians (n=35). Physicians completed a 26-item survey that assessed attitudes about the SDM process for PCS., Results: More physicians endorsed SDM (47.4%) or the patient deciding (35.6%), while few physicians wanted to decide for their patients about screening. However, 54.8% endorsed an annual PSA as the standard of care. Most felt that decisions should be based on full disclosure of the risks and benefits of testing (93.3%), and few believed that the sensitivity and specificity of the PSA was adequate (36.6%). Across all physicians, lack of time, competing health demands, malpractice fears, and patient interest were all commonly cited as potential factors that influence the SDM process. Compared to academic clinicians and interns/residents, community clinicians were more likely to endorse annual screening, to be concerned about malpractice, and to agree that PSA sensitivity and specificity are acceptable., Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate physician, patient and systemic factors regarding the PCS decision. Further effort is needed to overcome the barriers of engaging patients in SDM if we want to truly promote effective SDM for PCS, as espoused by national guidelines.

Published
2011

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results