Supporting non-experts in judging the credibility of risk assessments (CORA).

PURPOSE One of the crucial communication issues that have to be tackled by risk assessors is how to provide a comprehensible and informative characterization of their findings. The CORA framework (CORA stands for credibility of risk assessment) is designed for helping non-experts in judging the credibility of risk assessments. The CORA framework can be used by (1) stakeholders and policy makers, to make an educated judgment about the credibility of an assessment, and (2) the authors of a risk assessment, to improve the evaluability of their reports. The CORA framework consists of 18 criteria, leading to six main recommendations. The framework's application is not limited to (EMF) risk assessment, for which it was originally developed, but can be used in any area of risk or hazard assessment.

[1]  G. Colditz,et al.  How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature , 2000 .

[2]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[3]  M. Repacholi,et al.  Criteria for EMF Health Risk Assessment , 1997 .

[4]  P. Briss,et al.  Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. , 2000, American journal of preventive medicine.

[5]  L. Vygotsky.  Interaction between learning and development , 1978 .

[6]  Julie Barnett,et al.  When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Michelle E. Kho,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[8]  P. Wiedemann,et al.  Perception of Uncertainty and Communication about Unclear Risks , 2008 .

[9]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .

[10]  Ord,et al.  Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making , 2013 .

[11]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[12]  Merrill Goozner,et al.  Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[13]  Stephen B. Salter,et al.  A cross-country study on the effects of national culture on earnings management , 2010 .

[14]  P. Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Thomas C. Beierle,et al.  Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation , 2001 .

[17]  M. Eisend.  Source Credibility Dimensions in Marketing Communication - A Generalized Solution , 2006 .

[18]  K. McComas,et al.  Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists , 2008, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.

[19]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  [Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement]. , 2005, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[20]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  T. Earle,et al.  Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[22]  Howard Balshem,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[24]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[25]  K. Straif,et al.  Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[26]  Carl I. Hovland,et al.  Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. , 1959 .

[27]  Grant Mccracken.  Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process , 1989 .

[28]  Thomas Webler,et al.  “Right” Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick , 1995 .

[29]  L. Vygotsky.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[30]  Martin Röösli,et al.  Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies , 2006, Environmental health perspectives.

[31]  Wu Wen-ting,et al.  Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation:AGREE Instrument , 2007 .

[32]  Sarah E. Rosenbaum,et al.  Presenting the Results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a Consumer Audience: A Qualitative Study , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[33]  G. Colditz,et al.  How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence , 1999 .

[34]  Seema K. Schappelle,et al.  Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: transparency is imperative. , 2010, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[35]  P. Wiedemann,et al.  Informing the public about information and participation strategies in the siting of mobile communication base stations: an experimental study , 2008 .

[36]  R. Saunders,et al.  WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data , 2009 .

[37]  Thomas C. Beierle.  Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions , 2010 .

[38]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[39]  Leeka Kheifets,et al.  Risk Governance for Mobile Phones, Power Lines, and Other EMF Technologies , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[40]  V T Covello,et al.  The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[41]  Leeka Kheifets,et al.  Mobile Phones, Brain Tumors, and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now? , 2011, Environmental health perspectives.

[42]  Harald F Krug,et al.  Evidence Maps: Communicating Risk Assessments in Societal Controversies: The Case of Engineered Nanoparticles , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[43]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. , 2012, International journal of surgery.

[44]  R. MacCoun.  Conflicts of Interest in Public Policy Research , 2004 .

[45]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation , 2007 .