Using expert opinion rounds to develop valid and realistic manipulations for experimental video-vignette research: Results from a study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care.

OBJECTIVE

To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care.

METHODS

In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video-vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable arguments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13-20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions.

CONCLUSION

Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians' treatment plans.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions - both for research and practice.