Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect [2] or base rate bias, is a type of fallacy in which people tend to ignore the base rate (e.g., general prevalence) in favor of the individuating information (i.e., information pertaining only to a specific case). [3]
This is a list of notable academic journals about nursing.. AACN Advanced Critical Care; AACN Nursing Scan in Critical Care; Advances in Neonatal Care; American Journal of Critical Care
Persons with disabilities are easy targets for predators as they may not have the resources or abilities to escape an abusive situation or communicate about the occurrences. Hard of hearing persons are placed at twice the risk for neglect and emotional abuse in comparison to other disabilities and nearly four times in regards to physical abuse. [3]
Typically, the turnover rate among an organization's UAPs is very high. One 2021 study found the turnover rate for UAPs working at American nursing homes to be 129%. [26] Rapid turnover can be detrimental to patients' quality of care and cause stress and dissatisfaction among remaining employees.
Base rates may be neglected more often when the information presented is not causal. [17] Base rates are used less if there is relevant individuating information. [18] Groups have been found to neglect base rate more than individuals do. [19] Use of base rates differs based on context. [20]
List-length effect: A smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the length of the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered increases as well. [162] Memory inhibition: Being shown some items from a list makes it harder to retrieve the other items (e.g., Slamecka, 1968). Misinformation effect
People with disabilities face 1.5 times more violence than people without disabilities. [1] [2] The perpetrators are often people known to the person with disabilities, such as their partners, family members, friends, or acquaintances. It is estimated that 15% of the world's population lives with disability and are more likely to be poor and ...
In another example of near-total neglect of probability, Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) found that the typical subject was willing to pay $10 to avoid a 99% chance of a painful electric shock, and $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. They suggest that probability is more likely to be neglected when the outcomes are emotion-arousing.