- 【Updated on May 12, 2025】 Integration of CiNii Dissertations and CiNii Books into CiNii Research
- Trial version of CiNii Research Knowledge Graph Search feature is available on CiNii Labs
- 【Updated on June 30, 2025】Suspension and deletion of data provided by Nikkei BP
- Regarding the recording of “Research Data” and “Evidence Data”
The Causes of Errors in Clinical Reasoning: Cognitive Biases, Knowledge Deficits, and Dual Process Thinking
-
- Geoffrey R. Norman
- G.R. Normanis emeritus professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
-
- Sandra D. Monteiro
- S.D. Monteirois assistant professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
-
- Jonathan Sherbino
- J. Sherbinois associate professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
-
- Jonathan S. Ilgen
- J.S. Ilgenis associate professor, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
-
- Henk G. Schmidt
- H.G. Schmidtis professor, Department of Psychology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
-
- Silvia Mamede
- S. Mamedeis associate professor, Department of Psychology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Search this article
Description
<jats:p>Contemporary theories of clinical reasoning espouse a dual processing model, which consists of a rapid, intuitive component (Type 1) and a slower, logical and analytical component (Type 2). Although the general consensus is that this dual processing model is a valid representation of clinical reasoning, the causes of diagnostic errors remain unclear. Cognitive theories about human memory propose that such errors may arise from both Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning. Errors in Type 1 reasoning may be a consequence of the associative nature of memory, which can lead to cognitive biases. However, the literature indicates that, with increasing expertise (and knowledge), the likelihood of errors decreases. Errors in Type 2 reasoning may result from the limited capacity of working memory, which constrains computational processes. In this article, the authors review the medical literature to answer two substantial questions that arise from this work: (1) To what extent do diagnostic errors originate in Type 1 (intuitive) processes versus in Type 2 (analytical) processes? (2) To what extent are errors a consequence of cognitive biases versus a consequence of knowledge deficits?</jats:p> <jats:p>The literature suggests that both Type 1 and Type 2 processes contribute to errors. Although it is possible to experimentally induce cognitive biases, particularly availability bias, the extent to which these biases actually contribute to diagnostic errors is not well established. Educational strategies directed at the recognition of biases are ineffective in reducing errors; conversely, strategies focused on the reorganization of knowledge to reduce errors have small but consistent benefits.</jats:p>
Journal
-
- Academic Medicine
-
Academic Medicine 92 (1), 23-30, 2017-01
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Tweet
Details 詳細情報について
-
- CRID
- 1360855568798062080
-
- ISSN
- 10402446
-
- Data Source
-
- Crossref