This study is an investigation of the existence and potential causes of systematic differences between patients and physicians in their assessments of the intensity of patients' pain. In an emergency department in France, patients (N=200) and their physicians (N=48) rated the patients' pain using a visual analog scale, both on arrival and at discharge. Results showed, in confirmation of previous studies, that physicians gave significantly lower ratings than did patients of the patients' pain both on arrival (mean difference -1.33, standard error (SE)=0.17, on a scale of 0-10, P<0.001) and at exit (-1.38, SE=0.15, P<0.001). The extent of 'miscalibration' was greater with expert than novice physicians and depended on interactions among physician gender, patient gender, and the obviousness of the cause of pain. Thus physicians' pain ratings may have been affected by non-medical factors.

No abstract

Dispositional optimism was originally construed as unidimensional (Scheier & Carver, 1992). However, LOT‐R data (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) generally appeared bidimensional as a number of studies suggest a two‐correlated‐factor model representing optimism and pessimism. Attempts at corroborating one‐factor models suggest that correlated errors between positively worded items are required for an adequate account of the data. This article explains bidimensionality by the influence of social desirability (i.e., being positive is desirable). Namely, in the present study, correlated errors are interpreted as the presence of individual differences related to the tendency to present oneself in a positive manner. Moreover, response styles can be corroborated by appropriately modelling the entire covariance matrix (i.e., including fillers), by checking that fillers with positive meaning correlate with the faking‐good group factor. Students (N = 442) responded to a French adaptation of the LOT‐R. The data were submitted to SEM analyses. The traditional two‐correlated factor model (optimism‐pessimism) was outperformed by a model including a common factor (“optimism”) plus a factor grouping positive items only (“faking positive”). In addition, reliability analyses showed that the choice of the model clearly impacts the reliability estimates based on the model. The entire dataset was modelled for exploring the relationships between the fillers and the measurement model (i.e., the set of all relationships between factors and their indicators). The specific correlations of fillers whose meaning is positive with the faking‐good group factor corroborated its substantial interpretation. It is concluded that there is no empirical necessity for hypothesizing that the dispositional optimism construct must be split into optimism plus pessimism. L'optimisme dispositionnel a été initialement conçu comme unidimensionnel (Scheier & Carver, 1992). Néanmoins, les données recueillies avec le LOT‐R (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) sont généralement apparues bidimensionnelles, un modèle à deux facteurs corrélés d'optimisme et de pessimisme étant suggéré par de nombreuses études. Les tentatives pour corroborer les modèles unifactoriels suggèrent que corréler les erreurs entre items positivement formulés est nécessaire pour rendre compte adéquatement des données. Cet article explique la bidimensionalité par L'influence de la désirabilité sociale (i.e., il est désirable de paraître positif). Ainsi, dans la présente étude, la corrélation des erreurs est interprétée comme le signe de L'existence de différences individuelles dans la tendance à se présenter de manière positive. L'existence de styles de réponse peut de plus être corroborée en modélisant correctement la matrice de covariances entière (y compris les items servant de leurre), en vérifiant que les leurres ayant une signification positive corrèlent avec le facteur ayant trait à la désirabilité des réponses. Des étudiants (N = 442) ont rempli une adaptation française du LOT‐R. Les ...