The Underestimation Of Egocentric Distance: Evidence From Frontal Matching Tasks

There is controversy over the existence, nature, and cause of error in egocentric distance judgments. One proposal is that the systematic biases often found in explicit judgments of egocentric distance along the ground may be related to recently observed biases in the perceived declination of gaze (Durgin & Li, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, in press), To measure perceived egocentric distance nonverbally, observers in a field were asked to position themselves so that their distance from one of two experimenters was equal to the frontal distance between the experimenters. Observers placed themselves too far away, consistent with egocentric distance underestimation. A similar experiment was conducted with vertical frontal extents. Both experiments were replicated in panoramic virtual reality. Perceived egocentric distance was quantitatively consistent with angular bias in perceived gaze declination (1.5 gain). Finally, an exocentric distance-matching task was contrasted with a variant of the egocentric matching task. The egocentric matching data approximate a constant compression of perceived egocentric distance with a power function exponent of nearly 1; exocentric matches had an exponent of about 0.67. The divergent pattern between egocentric and exocentric matches suggests that they depend on different visual cues

Effectiveness of Teamwork in an Integrated Care Setting for Patients with COPD: Development and Testing of a Self-Evaluation Instrument for Interprofessional Teams

Introduction: Teamwork between healthcare providers is conditional for the delivery of integrated care. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of the conceptual framework Integrated Team Effectiveness Model for developing and testing of the Integrated Team Effectiveness Instrument. Theory and methods: Focus groups with healthcare providers in an integrated care setting for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were conducted to examine the recognisability of the conceptual framework and to explore critical success factors for collaborative COPD practice out of this framework. The resulting items were transposed into a pilot instrument. This was reviewed by expert opinion and completed 153 times by healthcare providers. The underlying structure and internal consistency of the instrument were verified by factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Results: The conceptual framework turned out to be comprehensible for discussing teamwork effectiveness. The pilot instrument measures 25 relevant aspects of teamwork in integrated COPD care. Factor analysis suggested three reliable components: teamwork effectiveness, team processes and team psychosocial traits (Cronbach’s alpha between 0.76 and 0.81). Conclusions and discussion: The conceptual framework Integrated Team Effectiveness Model is relevant in developing a practical full-spectrum instrument to facilitate discussing teamwork effectiveness. The Integrated Team Effectiveness Instrument provides a well-founded basis to self-evaluate teamwork effectiveness in integrated COPD care by healthcare providers. Recommendations are provided for the improvement of the instrument