1.D.2
Explaining psychological knowledge so people can use it
Énoncé de compétence 1.D.2 d’ASPPB : Disseminate and communicate knowledge with diverse groups (e.g., students, clients, other interdisciplinary professionals, the public) in an easily understandable manner
This statement covers communicating findings to clients, students, other professionals and the public in ways they can understand and act on. Clarity does not mean trading away accuracy: it means choosing formats people grasp, such as natural frequencies and absolute risks, checking understanding, being honest about uncertainty and adapting language to the audience. Poorly framed numbers mislead experts and laypeople alike.
Notions clés
- Transparent numbers
- People understand risk better through frequency statements, absolute risks and natural frequencies (for example, 8 of 26 people) than through single-event probabilities, relative risks or conditional probabilities. Nontransparent framing misleads patients, journalists and physicians alike.
- Teach-back
- Asking people to explain in their own words what they understood, then filling the gaps. Primary care physicians caring for diabetic patients with low health literacy rarely checked understanding, and checking it was associated with better glycemic control.
- Communicating uncertainty
- Stating uncertainty need not cost much credibility. In five experiments, communicating uncertainty about facts and numbers produced only a small decrease in trust in the numbers and the source, mostly when the uncertainty was expressed in words rather than numbers.
- Correcting misinformation
- Simple retractions often fail to undo a false belief and can even backfire. Corrections work better when designed with care, for example by giving an accurate alternative explanation that fills the gap the myth leaves.
- Language access
- For people with limited English proficiency, professional interpreters are associated with better communication, including fewer errors and better comprehension, and with better clinical care than ad hoc interpreters such as family members.
Exemple commenté
A primary care team asks a psychologist how to explain a positive result on a brief anxiety screen. In the clinic's own audit, of every 100 patients screened, 10 had an anxiety disorder; the screen flagged 8 of those 10 and also flagged 18 of the 90 patients without the disorder.
- Turn the audit into natural frequencies: 8 plus 18 means 26 of every 100 patients screen positive, and 8 of those 26 have the disorder.
- Draw the plain meaning: about 3 in 10 people who screen positive have an anxiety disorder, so a positive screen calls for a fuller assessment and is not a diagnosis.
- Write wording patients can use: 'Of about 26 people who screen positive like you, about 8 turn out to have an anxiety disorder. A longer conversation will tell us which group you are in.'
- Check understanding: ask each patient to say in their own words what the result means, and correct any gaps before they leave.
Natural frequencies let people see what a result means without doing conditional probability in their heads.
Vérifiez vos acquis
A psychologist writing a public web article about a national estimate of how many adults have chronic insomnia is unsure whether to give the estimate with its numerical range or as one figure, fearing that a range will make readers distrust it. What does experimental research suggest?
Sources
- Gigerenzer, Gaissmaier, Kurz-Milcke, Schwartz and Woloshin (2007), Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics, Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PMID 26161749), Abstract: recommendations for transparent risk communication
- Schillinger, Piette, Grumbach and colleagues (2003), Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy, Archives of Internal Medicine (PMID 12523921), Abstract, Results and Conclusions
- van der Bles, van der Linden, Freeman and Spiegelhalter (2020), The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PMID 32205438), Abstract
- Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz and Cook (2012), Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing, Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PMID 26173286), Abstract; recommendations section (alternative explanations)
- Karliner, Jacobs, Chen and Mutha (2007), Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature, Health Services Research (PMID 17362215), Abstract, Principal Findings and Conclusions