Year: 2005
Type: article
Abstract: In diagnostic reasoning, especially in a clinical setting, practitioners often widely disagree about the causal ex-planation for a given case. Most studies have assumed that such disagreements result from judgmental mis-takes due to biased reasoning, especially the tendency to seek confirmation for a theory or hypothesis they already entertain. Alternative explanations for these mistakes are: confusion about the type of requested diagnosis and a difference in knowledge available to the practitioner. The present paper introduces a method to control the latter two factors, for the first time enabling a study of the influence of the first factor in isolation. In the ex-periment, eighteen advanced postgraduate practitioners made a diagnosis in interaction with a computer pro-gram simulating various reading impairments. We found two surprising results: First, the confirmatory tendency was not as prevalent as commonly assumed and second, more important, that where it was employed it was con-ducive to sound diagnostic decisions.
Authors: E.J.M. van Aarle, E.C.M. Hoenkamp
Institution: Radboud University Nijmegen
Language: English
Subfield: Family Practice
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2397956160