Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1985; 24(04): 181-191
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1636676
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

The Impact of an Explanation Capability for a Computer Consultation System

Die Bedeutung der Fähigkeit zur Kommentierung für ein Computerberatungssystem
H. P. Erdman
1   (From the Psychiatric Computing Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The impact of a computer consultation program including explanations for its decisions was examined. The consultation program was designed as a decision aid for non-psychiatrists regarding the treatment of depression. Both psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists were used to evaluate the system, with different results for the two groups. Explanations improved the non-psychiatrists’ attitudes towards the computer recommendations, while for psychiatrists the impact of explanation depended on the specific content of the recommendations and explanations. The results for psychiatrists were consistent with the view that explanations are important for computer consultation systems because they may help physicians decide whether or not the computer’s advice is reasonable.

Die Bedeutung eines Computerberatungsprogramms mit Erklärungen für seine Entscheidungen wurde untersucht. Das Konsultationsprogramm wurde als Entscheidungshilfe für Nicht-psychiater bei der Behandlung von Depressionen erarbeitet. Sowohl Psychiater als auch Nichtpsychiater werteten das System aus - mit unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen in beiden Gruppen.

Erklärungen verbesserten die Einstellung der Nichtpsychiater gegenüber den Computerempfehlungen, während bei den Psychiatern das Gewicht des Kommentares von dem spezifischen Inhalt der Empfehlungen und Erklärungen abhängig war. Die Ergebnisse bei den Psychiatern bestätigten die Ansicht, daß Erklärungen von Bedeutung für Computerberatungssysteme sind, weil sie den Ärzten die Entscheidung darüber, ob der Rat des Computers vernünftig ist oder nicht, erleichtern können.

Key-Words:

Computer Consultation Systems - Expert Systems - Explanation - Medical Decision Making

Schlüssel-Wörter:

Computerberatungssysteme - Expertensysteme - Erklärung - ärztliche Entscheidungsfindung
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Bar-Hillel Y. Is information retrieval approaching a crisis?. Amer. Doc 14 1963; 95-97.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bleich H. L. Computer evaluation of acid-base disorders. J clin. Invest 1969; 48: 1689-1696.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled dis-agreement or partial credit. Psychol. Bull 70 1968; 213-220.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cronbach L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 1951; 297-334.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 D'Arcy C. Patterns in the delivery of psychiatric care in Saskatchewan 1971-1972: An overview of service sectors and patient volumes. Can. Psychiatr. Ass. J 1976; 21: 91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dannenberg A. L, Shapiro A. R.J .F. Enhancement of clinical predictive ability by computer consultation. Meth. Inform. Med 18 1979; 10-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 De Dombal F T, Leaper D. J, Horrocks J. C, Staniland J. R, McCann A. P. Human and computer-aided diagnosis of abdominal pain: further report with emphasis on performance of clinicians. Brit. med. J 1974; I: 376-380.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Einhorn H. J, Hogarth R. M. Confidence in judgment: persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychol. Rev 28 1978; 395-416.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Erdman H. P, Greist J. H, Klein M. H, Jefferson J. W, Olson W, Salinger R. Computer Consultation for Psychiatric Diagnosis. In O'Neill J. F. (Edit.) The Fourth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: IEEE; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Fischhoff B. Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J. exper. Psychol 3 1975; 288-299.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fox J, Bardhan K. D, Barber D. C. Alternatives to Bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference. Meth. Inform. Med 19 1980; 210-215.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fryback D. G, Erdman H. Prospects for calibration of physicians' probabilistic judgments: Design of a feedback system. Proceed. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Cybernetics and Society. New York: IEEE; 1979: 340-345.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Fryback D. G, Thornbury J. R. Evaluation of a computerized Bayesian model for diagnosis of renal cyst vs. tumor vs. normal variant from excretory urogram information. Invest. Radiol 11 1976; 102-111.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gillis J. S, Lipkin J. O, Moran T. J. Drug therapy decisions: a social judgment analysis. J. nerv. ment. Dis 169 1981; 439-447.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goldberg L. R. Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. Psychol. Bull 73 1970; 422-432.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Goldman L, Weinberg M, Weisberg M, Olshen R, Cook E. F, Sargent R. K, Lamas G. A, Dennis C, Wilson C, Deckelbaum L, Fineberg H, Stiratelli R. A computer derived protocol to aid in the diagnosis of emergency room patients with acute chest pain. New Engl. J. Med 307 1982; 588-596.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gorry G. A. Computer-assisted clinical decision making. Meth. Inform. Med 12 1973; 45-51.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gustafson D. H, Greist J. H, Stauss F F, Erdman H. P, Laughren T. P. A probabilistic system for identifying suicide attempters. Comput. biomed. Res 10 1977; 83-89.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gustafson D. H, Kestly J. J, Greist J. H, Jensen N. M. Initial evaluation of a subjective Bayesian Diagnostic System. Health Serv. Res 6 1971; 204-213.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hoeper E. W, Nycz G. R, Cleary P. D, Regier D. A, Goldberg I. G. Estimated prevalence of RDC mental disorder in primary medical care. Int. J. ment. Hlth 8 1980; 6-15.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Landis J. R, Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 1977; 159-174.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Levin J. R, Marascuilo L. A. Type IV errors and interactions. Psychol. Bull 78 1972; 368-374.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B. Do those who know more also know more about what they know?. Organizat. Behav. Human Perform 20 1977; 159-183.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 McDonald C. J. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectibility of man. New Engl. J. Med 295 1976; 1351-1355.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mesel E, Wirtschafter D.D, Carpenter J. T, Durant J. R, Henke C, Gray E. A. Clinical algorithms for cancer chemotherapy - systems for community-based consultant - extenders and oncology centers. Meth. Inform. Med 15 1976; 168-173.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Miller R. A, Pople H. E, Myers J. D. Internist-I, an experimental computer-based diagnostic consultant for general internal medicine. New Engl. J. Med 307 1982; 468-476.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mumford E. On being a patient. In Simons R. C, Pardes H. (Eds) Understanding Human Behavior in Health and Illness. Baltimore: Williams and Williams; 1981
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Nielsen A. C, Williams T. A. Depression in ambulatory medical patients. Arch, gen. Psychiat 37 1980; 999-1004.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pople H. E, Myers J. D, Miller R. A. DIALOG: A model of diagnostic logic for internal medicine. Proceed. Fourth Internat. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Art. Intell. Lab. Publ; 1975: 848-855.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Raju N. S. Note on two generalizations of coefficient alpha. Psychometrika 44 1979; 347-349.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Regier D. A, Goldberg I. D, Taube C. A. The de facto US mental health services system. Arch. gen. Psychiat 35 1978; 685-693.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shortliffe E. H, Axline S. G, Buchanan B. G, Cohen S. N. Design considerations for a program to provide consultation in clinical therapeutics. Proceed. San Diego biomed. Symp 13 1974; 311-319.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shortliffe E. H, Buchanan B. G, Feigenbaum E. A. Knowledge engineering for medical decision making: A review of computer-based clinical decision aids. Proceed. IEEE 67 1979; 1207-1224.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shortliffe E. H, Davis R, Axline S. G, Buchanan B. G, Green C. C, Cohen S. N. Computer-based consultations in clinical therapeutics: Explanation and rule acquisition capabilities of the MYCIN system. Comput. biomed. Res 5 1975; 303-320.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Spitzer R. L, Endicott J, Cohen J, Fleiss J. L. Constraints on the validity of computer diagnosis. Arch. gen. Psychiat 31 1974; 197-203.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Swartout W. R. Explaining and justifying expert consulting programs. Proceed. Seventh Internat. Joint Conf. Artif. In-tell. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Art. Intell. Lab. Publ; 1981: 815-822.
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Taylor T. R, Aitchison J, McGirr E. M. Doctors as decision makers: A computer-assisted study of diagnosis as a cognitive skill. Brit. med. J 1971; III: 35-40.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Teach R. L, Shortliffe E. H. An analysis of physician attitudes regarding computer-based clinical consultation systems. Comput. biomed. Res 14 1981; 542-558.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 1974; 1124-1131.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wallis J. W, Shortliffe E. H. Explanatory power for medical expert systems: studies in the representation of causal relationships for clinical consultation. Meth. Inform. Med 21 1982; 127-136.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wardle A, Wardle L. Computer-aided diagnosis. Meth. Inform. Med 17 1978; 15-28.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Warner H. R, Olmsted C. M, Rutherford B. D. HELP - A program for medical decision-making. Comput. biomed. Res 5 1972; 65-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Weiner J. L. BLAH, a system which explains its reasoning. Artif. Intell 15 1980; 19-48.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Weiss S. M, Kulikowski C. A, Amarel S, Safir A. A model-based method for computer-aided medical decision making. Artif. Intell 11 1978; 145-172.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Weiss S.M, Kulikowski C.A, Safir A. Glaucoma consultation by computer. Comput. biol. Med 8 1978; 25-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Weissman M. M, Myers J. K, Thompson D. Depression and its treatment in a US urban community - 1975-1976. Arch. gen. Psychiat 38 1981; 417-421.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Whitbeck C, Brooks R. Criteria for evaluating a computer aid to clinical reasoning. J. Med. Philos 8 1983; 51-65.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Winer B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Yu V. L, Fagan L. M, Wraith S. M, Clancey W. J, Scott A. C, Hannigan J, Blum R. L, Buchanan B. G, Cohen S. N. Antimicrobial selection by computer: A blinded evaluation by infectious disease experts. J. Amer. med. Ass 242 1979; 1279-1282.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar