In the past decade there has been a discussion on the need for and degree of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of problem structuring methods (PSMs). Some authors propose that PSMs are used in unique situations which are difficult to study, both from a methodological and a practical perspective. In another view experimental validation is necessary and, if not obtained, PSMs remain substantially invalidated and thus 'suspect' with regard to their claims of effectiveness. Both views agree on one point: the necessity of being clear about the important factors in the context in which a method is used, the method's aims and its essential elements through which these aims are achieved. A clear formulation of central variables is the core of a theoretical validation, without which empirical testing of effects is impossible. Since the process of PSMs is sometimes referred to as 'more art than science', increased clarity on the PSM process also supports the transfer of methods. In this article we consider goals important to most PSMs, such as consensus and commitment. We then focus on outcomes of group model building, and expectations on how context and group modeling process contributes to outcomes. Next we discuss the similarity of these central variables and relations to two sets of theories in social psychology: the theory of planned behavior and dual process theories of persuasion. On the basis of these theories we construct a preliminary conceptual model on group model building effectiveness and address its practical applicability for research on PSM.
Although we found insufficient support for the empirical tenability of the hypothesised model, this study revealed some new findings of practical interest. The relationships found suggest that it might be possible to reduce the caregiving burden by improving the social functioning of the person with dementia, the caregiver's perceptions and the caregiver's capacity to function in daily life.
In this study the perception of chewing is investigated in forty-three subjects with a shortened dental arch (SDA) by means of an interview. A group of fifty-four subjects with a complete dentition was used as a control group. The aim was: (i) do subjects with a SDA have a higher risk of chewing problems, and (ii) do they have different food perception and food selection leading to change in their diet? The results show that for subjects with a SDA the chewing function, food perception, food selection and actual food consumption are hindered within an acceptable degree.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.