Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300432acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Decision-Making Under Uncertainty in Research Synthesis: Designing for the Garden of Forking Paths

Published: 02 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

To make evidence-based recommendations to decision-makers, researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses must navigate a garden of forking paths: a series of analytical decision-points, each of which has the potential to influence findings. To identify challenges and opportunities related to designing systems to help researchers manage uncertainty around which of multiple analyses is best, we interviewed 11 professional researchers who conduct research synthesis to inform decision-making within three organizations. We conducted a qualitative analysis identifying 480 analytical decisions made by researchers throughout the scientific process. We present descriptions of current practices in applied research synthesis and corresponding design challenges: making it more feasible for researchers to try and compare analyses, shifting researchers' attention from rationales for decisions to impacts on results, and supporting communication techniques that acknowledge decision-makers' aversions to uncertainty. We identify opportunities to design systems which help researchers explore, reason about, and communicate uncertainty in decision-making about possible analyses in research synthesis.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (paper202.zip)
MP4 File (paper202.mp4)

References

[1]
B. F. Anderson, D. H. Deane, K. R. Hammond, and G. H. McClelland. 1981. Concepts in judgment and decision research. Praeger, New York.
[2]
H Arksey and L O'Malley. 2005. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, 1 (2005), 19--25.
[3]
Kenneth J. (Kenneth Joseph) Arrow. 1965. Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. (1965).
[4]
Maya Bar-hillel and Efrat Neter. 1993. How Alike Is It Versus How Likely Is It: A Disjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 6 (1993), 1119--1131.
[5]
Leon Bax, Ly Mee Yu, Noriaki Ikeda, and Karel G.M. Moons. 2007. A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7, February 2007 (2007).
[6]
Leon Bax, Ly Mee Yu, Noriaki Ikeda, Harukazu Tsuruta, and Karel G.M. Moons. 2006. Development and validation of MIX: Comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6, 50 (2006), 1--11.
[7]
Sarah Belia, Fiona Fidler, Jennifer Williams, and Geoff Cumming. 2005. Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychological methods 10, 4 (2005), 389.
[8]
Silvia Bonaccio and Reeshad S Dalal. 2006. Advice taking and decisionmaking: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006), 127--151.
[9]
M Borenstein, L Hedges, J Higgins, and H Rothstein. 2005. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2. Engelwood, NJ, Biostat. (2005).
[10]
Nadia Boukhelifa, Marc-Emmanuel Perrin, Samuel Huron, and James Eagan. 2017. How Data Workers Cope with Uncertainty : A Task Characterisation Study. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017).
[11]
David V Budescu and Adrian K Rantilla. 2000. Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions. Acta Psychologica 104 (2000), 371--398.
[12]
Steven P Callahan, Juliana Freire, Emanuele Santos, Carlos E Scheidegger, Cláudio T Silva, and Huy T Vo. 2006. VisTrails: visualization meets data management. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. ACM, 745--747.
[13]
Beth Chance, Robert del Mas, and Joan Garfield. 2004. Reasoning about sampling distribitions. In The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking. Springer, 295--323.
[14]
B Chance, J Garfield, and B delMas. 1999. A model of classroom research in action: Developing simulation activities to improve students' statistical reasoning. 52nd Session of the International Statistical Institute, Helsinki, Finland (1999).
[15]
Beth Chance, Joan Garfield, and Robert delMas. 2000. Developing Simulation Activities To Improve Students' Statistical Reasoning. (2000).
[16]
The Cochrane Collaboration. 2014. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre. (2014).
[17]
Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine. 2009. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
[18]
Richard Cox. 1999. Representation construction, externalised, cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction 9, 4 (1999), 343--363.
[19]
J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth. 2018. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
[20]
Geoff Cumming and Neil Thomason. 1998. Statplay: Multimedia for statistical understanding, in pereira-mendoza (ed. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, ISI. Citeseer.
[21]
Shawn P. Curley and J. Frank Yates. 1985. The Center and Range of the Probability Interval as Factors Affecting Ambiguity Preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36 (1985), 273- -287.
[22]
Hillel J Einhorn and Robin M Hogarth. 1985. Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference. Psychological Review 92, 4 (1985).
[23]
Michael Fernandes, Logan Walls, Sean Munson, Jessica Hullman, and Matthew Kay. 2018. Uncertainty Displays Using Quantile Dotplots or CDFs Improve Transit Decision-Making. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18.
[24]
R Ganann, D Ciliska, and H Thomas. 2010. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science (2010), 5--56.
[25]
P. Gardenfors and N. Sahlin. 1983. Decision making with unreliable probabilities. Brit. J. Math. Statist. Psych. 36 (1983), 240--251.
[26]
Andrew Gelman and Eric Loken. 2014. The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist 102, 6 (2014).
[27]
Gerd Gigerenzer and Ulrich Hoffrage. 1995. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102 (1995), 684--704.
[28]
Daniel G Goldstein and David Rothschild. 2014. Lay understanding of probability distributions. Judgment and Decision Making 9, 1 (2014), 1.
[29]
L Hasher and R T Zacks. 1984. Automatic processing of fundamental information: the case of frequency of occurrence. The American psychologist 39, 12 (1984), 1372--1388.
[30]
Ralph Hertwig, Greg Barron, Elke U Weber, and Ido Erev. 2004. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological science 15, 8 (2004), 534--539.
[31]
U. Hoffrage and G. Gigerenzer. 1998. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 73, 5 (May 1998), 538--540.
[32]
Robin M Hogarth. 1987. Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. (1987).
[33]
Jessica Hullman, Matthew Kay, Yea-Seul Kim, and Samana Shrestha. 2018. Imagining Replications: Graphical Prediction & Discrete Visualizations Improve Recall & Estimation of Effect Uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis) (2018). http: //idl.cs.washington.edu/papers/imagining-replications
[34]
Jessica Hullman, Paul Resnick, and Eytan Adar. 2015. Hypothetical Outcome Plots Outperform Error Bars and Violin Plots for Inferences about Reliability of Variable Ordering. PloS one 10, 11 (2015).
[35]
D Mills Jamie. 2002. Using computer simulation methods to teach statistics: A review of the literature. Journal of Statistics Education 10, 1 (2002).
[36]
Niels Erik Jensen. 1967. An introduction to Bernoullian utility theory: I. Utility functions. The Swedish journal of economics (1967), 163--183.
[37]
D. Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
[38]
Alex Kale, Francis Nguyen, Matthew Kay, and Jessica Hullman. 2019. Hypothetical Outcome Plots Help Untrained Observers Judge Trends in Ambiguous Data. IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis) (2019). http://idl.cs.washington.edu/papers/hops-trends
[39]
Matthew Kay, Tara Kola, Jessica Hullman, and Sean Munson. 2016. When (ish) is my bus? User-centered visualizations of uncertainty in everyday, mobile predictive systems. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16).
[40]
S Khangura, K Konnyu, R Cushman, J Grimshaw, and D Moher. 2012. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev (2012), 1--10.
[41]
Yea-Seul Kim, Katharina Reinecke, and Jessica Hullman. 2017. Explaining the Gap: Visualizing One's Predictions Improves Recall and Comprehension of Data. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17 (2017), 1375--1386.
[42]
Yea-Seul Kim, Katharina Reinecke, and Jessica Hullman. 2018. Data Through Others' Eyes: The Impact of Visualizing Others' Expectations on Visualization Interpretation. IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis) (2018). http://idl.cs.washington.edu/papers/ others-expectations
[43]
Yea-Seul Kim, Logan Walls, Peter Krafft, and Jessica Hullman. 2019. A Bayesian Cognition Approach to Improve Data Visualization. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2019).
[44]
George J. Klir and Bo Yuan. 1995. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
[45]
D Levac, H Colquhoun, and K K O'Brien. 2010. Scoping studes: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5, 69 (2010), 1--9. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3
[46]
M.W. Lipsey and D.B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. SAGE Publications.
[47]
Raanan Lipshitz and Orna Strauss. 1997. Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69, 2 (1997), 149--163.
[48]
John Lofland, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmond=t, CA.
[49]
K. R. MacCrimmon and D. A. Wehrung. 1986. Taking risks. Free Press, New York.
[50]
Alan M MacEachren, Anthony Robinson, Susan Hopper, Steven Gardner, Robert Murray, Mark Gahegan, and Elisabeth Hetzler. 2005. Visualizing Geospatial Information Uncertainty: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32, 3 (2005), 139--160.
[51]
Charles F. Manski. 2003. Partial Identification of Probability Distributions: Springer Series in Statistics. Springer.
[52]
Charles F Manski. 2018. Communicating uncertainty in policy analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2018).
[53]
Charles F Manski. 2018. The Lure of Incredible Certitude. Working Paper 24905. National Bureau of Economic Research.
[54]
James G March. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. (1976).
[55]
J. G. March and H. A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. Wiley, New York.
[56]
M Miles, M Huberman, and J Saldana. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3 ed.). SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, Chapter 2.
[57]
Hedwig M. Natter and Dianne C. Berry. 2005. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19, 1 (2005), 123--135.
[58]
Heidi D. Nelson. 2014. Systematic Reviews to Answer Health Care Questions. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
[59]
Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz, and Ahmed Elmagarmid. 2016. Rayyan - a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. (2016).
[60]
Mai T. Pham, Andrijana Raji, Judy D. Greig, Jan M. Sargeant, Andrew Papadopoulos, and Scott A. Mcewen. 2014. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods 5, 4 (2014), 371--385. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3
[61]
Juho Piironen and Aki Vehtari. 2017. Comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection. Statistics and Computing 27, 3 (01 May 2017), 711--735.
[62]
Dominik Sacha, Hansi Senaratne, Bum Chul Kwon, Geoffrey Ellis, and Daniel A. Keim. 2016. The Role of Uncertainty, Awareness, and Trust in Visual Analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2016).
[63]
Gregory Schraw, Kent J. Crippen, and Kendall Hartley. 2006. Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education 36, 1--2 (2006), 111--139.
[64]
R. Silberzahn, E. L. Uhlmann, D. P. Martin, P. Anselmi, F. Aust, E. Awtrey,. Bahník, F. Bai, C. Bannard, E. Bonnier, R. Carlsson, F. Cheung, G. Christensen, R. Clay, M. A. Craig, A. Dalla Rosa, L. Dam, M. H. Evans, I. Flores Cervantes, N. Fong, M. Gamez-Djokic, A. Glenz, S. GordonMcKeon, T. J. Heaton, K. Hederos, M. Heene, A. J. Hofelich Mohr, F. Högden, K. Hui, M. Johannesson, J. Kalodimos, E. Kaszubowski, D. M. Kennedy, R. Lei, T. A. Lindsay, S. Liverani, C. R. Madan, D. Molden, E. Molleman, R. D. Morey, L. B. Mulder, B. R. Nijstad, N. G. Pope, B. Pope, J. M. Prenoveau, F. Rink, E. Robusto, H. Roderique, A. Sandberg, E. Schlüter, F. D. Schönbrodt, M. F. Sherman, S. A. Sommer, K. Sotak, S. Spain, C. Spörlein, T. Stafford, L. Stefanutti, S. Tauber, J. Ullrich, M. Vianello, E.-J. Wagenmakers, M. Witkowiak, S. Yoon, and B. A. Nosek. 2018. Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (2018).
[65]
Joseph P Simmons, Leif D Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2011. FalsePositive Psychology : Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science 22, 11 (2011), 1359--1366.
[66]
Uri Simonsohn, Joseph P. Simmons, and Leif D. Nelson. 2015. Specification Curve: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics on All Reasonable Specifications. SSRN (Nov 2015).
[67]
Emre Soyer and Robin M Hogarth. 2012. The illusion of predictability: How regression statistics mislead experts. International Journal of Forecasting 28, 3 (2012), 695--711.
[68]
Sara Steegen, Francis Tuerlinckx, Andrew Gelman, and Wolf Vanpaemel. 2016. Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 11, 5 (2016), 702--712.
[69]
Lyn M Van Swol and Janet A Sniezek. 2005. Factors affecting the acceptance of expert advice. British Journal of Social Psychology 44 (2005), 443--461.
[70]
J Thomas, J Brunton, and S Graziosi. 2010. EPPI-Reviewer 4: software for research synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software. London: Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education. (2010).
[71]
Andrea C. Tricco, Jesmin Antony, Wasifa Zarin, Lisa Strifler, Marco Ghassemi, John Ivory, Laure Perrier, Brian Hutton, David Moher, and Sharon E. Straus. 2015. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine 13, 1 (2015). arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3
[72]
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1975. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Utility, probability, and human decision making. Springer, 141--162.
[73]
Wolfgang Viechtbauer. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36, 3 (2010), 1--48. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/
[74]
John von Neumann, Oskar Morgenstern, and Ariel Rubinstein. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition). Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/j.ctt1r2gkx
[75]
A Watt, A Cameron, L Sturm, T Lathlean, W Babidge, S Blamey, K Facey, D Hailey, I Norderhaug, and G Maddern. 2008. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 (2008), 133--139.
[76]
Jelte M. Wicherts, Coosje L.S. Veldkamp, Hilde E.M. Augusteijn, Marjan Bakker, Robbie C.M. van Aert, and Marcel A.L.M. van Assen. 2016. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid P-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology 7, Nov (2016).
[77]
Ilan Yaniv and Dean P Foster. 1995. Graininess of Judgment Under Uncertainty: An Accuracy-Informativeness Trade-Off. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124, 4 (1995), 424--432.
[78]
Ilan Yaniv and Dean P. Foster. 1997. Precision and Accuracy of Judgmental Estimation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10 (1997), 21--32.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Toward an Optimized Human-AI Reviewing Strategy for Contract InspectionThe New Era of Business Intelligence [Working Title]10.5772/intechopen.1005255Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)An empirical study of counterfactual visualization to support visual causal inferenceInformation Visualization10.1177/1473871624122943723:2(197-214)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Odds and Insights: Decision Quality in Exploratory Data Analysis Under UncertaintyProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641995(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Decision-Making Under Uncertainty in Research Synthesis: Designing for the Garden of Forking Paths

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2019
      9077 pages
      ISBN:9781450359702
      DOI:10.1145/3290605
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 02 May 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. representing uncertainty
      2. research synthesis

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      Conference

      CHI '19
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 703 of 2,958 submissions, 24%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)346
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)45
      Reflects downloads up to 26 Sep 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Toward an Optimized Human-AI Reviewing Strategy for Contract InspectionThe New Era of Business Intelligence [Working Title]10.5772/intechopen.1005255Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
      • (2024)An empirical study of counterfactual visualization to support visual causal inferenceInformation Visualization10.1177/1473871624122943723:2(197-214)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
      • (2024)Odds and Insights: Decision Quality in Exploratory Data Analysis Under UncertaintyProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641995(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
      • (2024)How Do Data Analysts Respond to AI Assistance? A Wizard-of-Oz StudyProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641891(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
      • (2024) MetroBUX: A Topology-Based Visual Analytics for B us Operational U ncertainty E X ploration IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems10.1109/TITS.2023.333870025:6(5525-5538)Online publication date: Jun-2024
      • (2023)Causalvis: Visualizations for Causal InferenceProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581236(1-20)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
      • (2023)Understanding and Supporting Debugging Workflows in Multiverse AnalysisProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581099(1-19)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
      • (2023)MetaExplorer : Facilitating Reasoning with Epistemic Uncertainty in Meta-analysisProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580869(1-14)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
      • (2022)A Comparative Study of Methods for the Visualization of Probability Distributions of Geographical DataMultimodal Technologies and Interaction10.3390/mti60700536:7(53)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2022
      • (2022)Hypothesis Formalization: Empirical Findings, Software Limitations, and Design ImplicationsACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/347698029:1(1-28)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2022
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Get Access

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media