The Integration of the Evidence-Based Framework and Military Judgment and Decision-Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. McCullin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Single Component ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Military Planning ◽  
Operational Art ◽  
Subject Matter Expertise ◽  
Stakeholder Input ◽  
Defense Planning

This article is the second in a four-part series that discusses the integration of evidence-based framework and military judgment and decision-making (MJDM). The series is written as a conceptualization and implementation of the presidential memorandum on restoring faith in government dated 27 January 2021. The focus of the series is on integrating the evidence-based framework into defense planning and decision-making as an operational art. The series frames this integration in terms of basing decisions on the best evidence in four categories: subject matter expertise, stakeholder input, organizational data, and scholarship. It also recognizes that scholarship is the single component within the evidence-based framework not currently integrated into military planning.

Exploring Evidence-Based Management in Military Planning Processes as a Critically Appraised Topic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McCullin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Marine Corps ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Search Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Military Planning ◽  
Business Source Premier ◽  
Planning Processes

This study uses a critically appraised topic (CAT) to explore the potential of integrating evidence-based management (EBMgt) and military judgment and decision-making (MJDM). The study uses the five focus areas of the Commandant’s Planning Guidance: 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps to search scholarly databases such as the ABI/INFORM Collection from ProQuest and Business Source Premier from EBSCO. The search process was conducted using a research question variable synthesis (RQVS), introduced specifically for this study by the author. The RQVS applied to each of the Commandant’s five priority focus areas in separate inquiries, producing five separate data sets. The RQVS is a search enhancement methodology developed by the author. This methodology improves the linkage between the search process and the research question (RQ) and enhances rigor and transparency of the overall study. The key findings are that there is sufficient scholarship to address problem areas in each of the Commandant’s five priority focus areas. This study demonstrates that an integration of EBMgt and MJDM is both feasible and pragmatic.

Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 55-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Banks Miller ◽  
Brett Curry
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Subject Matter Expertise ◽  
Federal Circuit

What role does judicial subject matter expertise play in the review of agency decisions? Using a data set of decisions in which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) is reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we investigate this question and find that greater subject matter expertise does make it more likely that a judge will vote to reverse an agency decision.

Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (01) ◽  
pp. 29-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Curry ◽  
Banks Miller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
The Us ◽  
Subject Matter Expertise ◽  
Potent Factor

We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly potent factor in ideological decision making. Further, increased judicial experience has no effect on the conditional use of ideology. We discuss the potentially wide‐ranging implications of our findings for both theory and policy.

scholarly journals Judgment and decision-making in clinical dentistry

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (11) ◽  
pp. 030006052097287
Author(s):  
Liviu Feller ◽  
Johan Lemmer ◽  
Mbulaheni Simon Nemutandani ◽  
Raoul Ballyram ◽  
Razia Abdool Gafaar Khammissa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Statistical Approaches ◽  
Conferences And Congresses

The development of clinical judgment and decision-making skills is complex, requiring clinicians—whether students, novices, or experienced practitioners—to correlate information from their own experience; from discussions with colleagues; from attending professional meetings, conferences and congresses; and from studying the current literature. Feedback from treated cases will consolidate retention in memory of the complexities and management of past cases, and the conversion of this knowledge base into daily clinical practice. The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss factors related to clinical judgment and decision-making in clinical dentistry and how both narrative, intuitive, evidence-based data-driven information and statistical approaches contribute to the global process of gaining clinical expertise.

Abstraction: An alternative neurocognitive account of recognition, prediction, and decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Trace Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽  
Abstract Representations ◽  
Technical Systems

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document