-
-
The first study’s insinuation was that these hospitals typically can’t detect patients who don’t actually have problems (pseuds)... that being privy to the metric made them behave perversely and identify false positives is interpretation (2) of study 2.
-
The contradictory interpretation (1) of study 2 is that just being privy to the metric led them to apply the proper criteria & make classifications where they utterly failed to do so before (in real practice, without Rosenhan having to send any ad-hoc pseuds).
-
They both popped into my mind because it wasn’t clear whether they were actual positives or false positives—whether the punchline is that they were prodded into being more effective or that they were nudged into being (even more) dysfunctional.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.