Background. Many healthy women consider genetic testing for breast cancer risk, yet BRCA testing issues are complex. Objective. To determine whether an intelligent tutor, BRCA Gist, grounded in fuzzy-trace theory (FTT), increases gist comprehension and knowledge about genetic testing for breast cancer risk, improving decision making. Design. In 2 experiments, 410 healthy undergraduate women were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: an online module using a Web-based tutoring system (BRCA Gist) that uses artificial intelligence technology, a second group read highly similar content from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site, and a third that completed an unrelated tutorial. Intervention. BRCA Gist applied FTT and was designed to help participants develop gist comprehension of topics relevant to decisions about BRCA genetic testing, including how breast cancer spreads, inherited genetic mutations, and base rates. Measures. We measured content knowledge, gist comprehension of decision-relevant information, interest in testing, and genetic risk and testing judgments. Results. Control knowledge scores ranged from 54% to 56%, NCI improved significantly to 65% and 70%, and BRCA Gist improved significantly more to 75% and 77%, P < 0.0001. BRCA Gist scored higher on gist comprehension than NCI and control, P < 0.0001. Control genetic risk-assessment mean was 48% correct; BRCA Gist (61%) and NCI (56%) were significantly higher, P < 0.0001. BRCA Gist participants recommended less testing for women without risk factors (not good candidates; 24% and 19%) than controls (50%, both experiments) and NCI (32%), experiment 2, P < 0.0001. BRCA Gist testing interest was lower than in controls, P < 0.0001. Limitations. BRCA Gist has not been tested with older women from diverse groups. Conclusions. Intelligent tutors, such as BRCA Gist, are scalable, cost-effective ways of helping people understand complex issues, improving decision making.
GramITSlenkerSE. Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, nonattenders, and women never invited. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:249–51.
4.
FinnneyRLJGollustSENaveedSMoserRP. Increasing public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: health care access, Internet use, and population density correlates. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;2012:1–7.
ArmstrongKEisenAWeberB. Assessing the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(8):564–71.
12.
StefanekMHartmannLNelsonW. Risk-reduction mastectomy: clinical issues and research needs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1297–306.
13.
ChaoCStudtsJLAbellT. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(23):4299–305.
14.
O’NeillSCDeMarcoTPeshkiBN. Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. Am J Med Genet. 2006;142C:251–9.
15.
HanPKKleinWMAroraNK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):828–38.
16.
BerlinerJLFayAM. Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2007;16:241–60.
17.
GaffCLClarkeAJAtkinsonP. Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:1–13.
18.
Genetic Information Discrimination. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available from: URL: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm. Accessed 16 January 2014.
19.
WolfeCRWidmerCLReynaVF. The development and analysis of tutorial dialogues in AutoTutor Lite. Behav Res Meth. 2013;45:623–36.
20.
ChiMTHSilerSAJeongHYamauchiTHausmannRG. Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Sci. 2005;25:471–533.
21.
BloomBS. The 2 Sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ Res. 1984;136:4–16.
22.
VanLehnK. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educ Psychol. 2011;46:197–221.
23.
AmirEFreedmanOCSerugaBEvansDG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(10):680–1.
24.
GraesserAC. Learning, thinking, and emoting with discourse technologies. Am Psychol. 2011;66(8):746–57.
25.
ReynaVF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–65.
26.
LloydFJReynaVF. Clinical gist and medical education: connecting the dots. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1332–3.
27.
GraesserACMcNamaraDSVanLehnK. Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educ Psychol. 2005;40(4):225–34.
28.
AzevedoRLajoieSP. The cognitive basis for the design of a mammography interpretation tutor. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 1998;9:32–44.
29.
KrebsPProchaskaJORossiJS. A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. Prev Med. 2010;51(3-4):214–21.
30.
WolfeCRFisherCRReynaVFHuX. Improving internal consistency in conditional probability estimation with an intelligent tutoring system and Web-based tutorials. Int J Internet Sci. 2012;7:38–54.
31.
GraesserACMcNamaraDS. Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educ Psychol. 2010;45(4):234–44.
32.
GraesserACChipmanPHaynesBCOlneyA. AutoTutor: an intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE T Educ. 2005;48(4):612–8.
33.
GraesserACWiemer-HastingsPWiemer-HastingsKHarterDPersonN. The Tutoring Research Group. Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interact Learn Environ. 2000;8(2):129–47.
34.
LandauerTKFoltzPWLahamD. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 1998;25:259–84.
35.
HuXCaiZWiemer-HastingsPGraeserACMcNamaraDS. Strengths, limitations, and extensions of LSA. In: LandauerTK, ed. Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. p 401–25.
36.
LandauerTKDumaisST. A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychol Rev. 1997;104:211–40.
37.
VanLehnKGraesserACJacksonGTJordanPOlneyARoseCP. When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?Cognitive Sci. 2007;31:3–62.
38.
RoscoeRDChiMTH. Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instr Sci. 2008;36(4):321–50.
39.
MackayJSchulzPRubinelliSPithersA. Online patient education and risk assessment: project OPERA from cancerbackup: putting inherited breast cancer risk information into context using argumentation theory. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:261–6.
40.
RubinelliSSchulzPJPaoliniP. Argumentation in good news communication on genetic breast cancer: the experience of OPERA. Proceedings of CMNA. Available from: URL: http://www.cmna.info/CMNA8/programme/CMNA8-Rubinelli-etal.pdf. Updated 2008. Accessed 20 January 2014
41.
ReynaVFKiernanB. Development of gist versus verbatim memory in sentence recognition: effects of lexical familiarity, semantic content, encoding instructions, and retention interval. Dev Psychol. 1994;30(2):178–91.
42.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ. The origins of probability judgment: a review of data and theories. In: WrightGAytonP, eds. Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley; 1994. p 239–72.
43.
ReynaVF. Theories of medical decision making and health: an evidence-based approach. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:829–33.
44.
ReynaVF. A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgm Decis Mak. 2012;7(3):332–59.
45.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ. Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: a fuzzy-trace model. Dev Rev. 2011;31:180–206.
46.
ReynaVFEllisSC. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children’s risky decision-making. Psychol Sci. 1994;5(5):275–9.
47.
AdamMBReynaVF. Coherence and correspondence criteria for rationality: experts’ estimation of risks of sexually transmitted infections. J Behav Decis Making. 2005;18(3):169–86.
48.
ReynaVFFarleyF. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci. 2006;7(1):1–44.
49.
ReynaVFChickCFCorbinJCHsiaAN. Developmental reversals in risky decision-making: intelligence agents show larger decision biases than college students. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(1):76–84.
50.
ReynaVFLloydFJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12,179–95.
51.
MillsBReynaVFEstradaS. Explaining contradictory relations between risk perception and risk taking. Psychol Sci. 2008;19:429–33.
52.
ReynaVFEstradaSMDeMarinisJAMyersRMStaniszJMMillsBA. Neurobiological and memory models of risky decision making in adolescents versus young adults. J Exp Psychol Learn. 2011;37(5):1125–42.
53.
LloydFJReynaVF. A Web exercise in evidence-based medicine using cognitive theory. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(2):94–9.
54.
ReynaVFMillsBA. Theoretically motivated interventions for reducing sexual risk taking in adolescence: a randomized controlled experiment applying fuzzy-trace theory. J Exp Psychol Gen.In press.
55.
WolfeCRReynaVF. Semantic coherence and fallacies in estimating joint probabilities. J Behav Decis Making. 2010;23:203–23.
56.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKPignoneMP. Decision making and cancer. Am Psychol. In press.
57.
GigerenzerGGaissmaierW. Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62,451–82.
58.
PortnoyDBRoterDErbyLH. The role of numeracy on client knowledge in BRCA genetic counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(1):131–6.
59.
FraenkelLPetersECharpentierPOlsenBErranteLSchoenRTReynaVF. Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthrit Care Res. 2012;64:977–85.
60.
FukukuraJFergusonMJFujitaK. Psychological distance can improve decision making under information overload via gist memory. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013;142:658–65.
61.
WolfeCRFisherCRReynaVF. Semantic coherence and inconsistency in estimating conditional probabilities. J Behav Decis Making. In press.
62.
WolfeCR. Information seeking on Bayesian conditional probability problems: a fuzzy-trace theory account. J Behav Decis Making. 1995;8:85–108.
63.
GreenMJPetersonSKBakerMW. Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(4):442–52.
64.
WilfondBSRothenbergKHThomsonEJLermanC. Cancer genetic susceptibility testing: ethical and policy implications for future research and clinical practice. J Law Med Ethics. 1997;25:243–51.
65.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ. 2008;18(1):89–107.
66.
HoskinsKFZwaagstraARanzM. Validation of a tool for identifying women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer in population-based screening. Cancer. 2006;107:1769–76.
67.
HallJGraySA’HernR. Genetic testing for BRCA1: effects of a randomised study of knowledge provision on interest in testing and long term test uptake; implications for the NICE guidelines. Fam Cancer. 2009;8:5–13.
68.
AndersenMRSmithRMeischkeHBowenDUrbanN. Breast cancer worry and mammography use by women with and without a family history in a population-based sample. Cancer Epidem Biom. 2003;12:314–20.
69.
SpielbergerCD. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
70.
SchmiderEZieglerMDanayEBeyerLBuhnerM. Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodol. 2010;(4):147–51.
71.
DeCarloLT. On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychol Meth. 1997;2(3):292–307.
72.
WelchBL. On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative approach. Biometrika. 1951;38:330–6.
73.
WolfeCRBrittMAPetrovicMAlbrechtMKoppK. The efficacy of a Web-based counterargument tutor. Behav Res Meth. 2009;41:691–8.
74.
WolfeCRReynaVFBrainerdCJ. Fuzzy-trace theory: implications for transfer in teaching and learning. In: MestreJP, ed. Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press; 2005. p 53–88.
75.
FrancisG. Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychol Bull Rev. 2012;19:975–91.
76.
FagerlinAPignoneMAbhyankarP. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
