Moreover, by exclusively assessing decision making from the perspective of the patient, instrument development has largely ignored reciprocity as a defining feature of decision making [ 1, 21- 23].
While this is a common approach to assessing decision making, it is not without important limitations.
Nevertheless, some scales developed for other conditions have been successfully validated for assessing decision making in the treatment of people with mental illness, e.g. [ 26, 27].
With a few exceptions (e.g. [ 24]), instruments used to assess decision making in the treatment of people with mental illness have been developed in samples of people with physical conditions (mainly cancer).
For example, even though some instruments to assess decision making from the perspective of health professionals have been developed [ 20], there is a lack of parallel versions with an explicit focus on the reciprocal assessment of decision making [ 17, 19] from both patient and professional perspectives.
Future research comparing smoking and non-smoking AUDs on tasks specifically assessing decision making, risk taking and impulsivity is warranted because such measures have been reported to be adversely affected by AUD and chronic cigarette smoking (Bobova et al., 2009; Fein et al., 2006; Lejuez et al., 2003; Li et al., 2009).
The majority of studies in the Cochrane Collaboration's review (76/86; 88%) reported on one or more outcomes that assessed decision-making process or decision quality attributes.
Open-ended questions were asked such as how they assessed decision-making competence, what facilitated or hindered the person's decision making and their experiences of collaboration and coordination of services.
In this study, we examined psychophysiological arousal during healthy participants' performance of a novel gambling task that assesses decision-making under explicit risk, rather than decision-making in a learning context (i.e., under ambiguity), which has widely been explored in previous studies using the Iowa Gambling Task.
The team did not assess decision-making capacity at meetings, but did review the assessments.
