Clinical Judgment Faith Bias: The Impact of Faith and Multicultural Competence on Clinical Judgment

Harris, Kevin A.

doi:10.1037/e664752012-001

Cited by 1 publication

(23 citation statements)

References 115 publications

(311 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A model comparison approach was adopted for the current study. The purpose of this study was to reanalyze the data from Harris (2011), testing two alternative regression models using two multivariate multiple regression analyses, one for each model. Both models were created using mathematical modeling.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the model which is most parsimonious, closest to theory, best approximates real life, or best fits the data (Rodgers, 2010). Harris's (2011) dissertation directly investigated clinical judgment faith bias. Unlike much previous research investigating religiousness, Harris (2011) differentiated between religiousness and spirituality as distinct constructs, based on prior research conceptualizing them as continuous variables (Miller & Kelley, 2005) and as two different concepts (e.g., Hill et al, 2000;Piedmont, 2005;Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harris's (2011) dissertation directly investigated clinical judgment faith bias. Unlike much previous research investigating religiousness, Harris (2011) differentiated between religiousness and spirituality as distinct constructs, based on prior research conceptualizing them as continuous variables (Miller & Kelley, 2005) and as two different concepts (e.g., Hill et al, 2000;Piedmont, 2005;Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005). Religiousness was defined as a search for the sacred in a traditional institutional context that typically facilitates searches for the sacred, while spirituality was defined as a personal search for the sacred which may or may not occur in a traditional institutional context, with the sacred conceptualized as a divine being, object, reality, or truth as perceived by the individual, based on Hill et al's (2000) working definitions.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Religiousness was defined as a search for the sacred in a traditional institutional context that typically facilitates searches for the sacred, while spirituality was defined as a personal search for the sacred which may or may not occur in a traditional institutional context, with the sacred conceptualized as a divine being, object, reality, or truth as perceived by the individual, based on Hill et al's (2000) working definitions. Harris (2011) proposed four hypotheses:…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The goal of the current study was to retest Harris's (2011) hypotheses using mathematical modeling-and better regression models.…”

Section: Resilience Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical judgment faith bias: Unexpected findings for psychology research and practice.

Harris

Spengler

Gollery

2016

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Professional psychologists sometimes make more pathological judgments for clients with socially deviant faith (high religiousness or spirituality) than for otherwise identical clients with socially normative faith (low religiousness or spirituality). This phenomenon is called clinical judgment faith bias, and this study used mathematical modeling to investigate whether this occurs in psychological practice. Previously, Harris (2011) surveyed a national random sample of 141 psychologists in clinical practice to investigate clinical judgment faith bias with a specially designed clinical vignette. The current study reanalyzed the data from Harris (2011), testing 2 alternative regression models with multivariate multiple regressions. The test of the first model was not significant; neither the faith magnitude of a vignette (ranging from low to high) nor its faith type (religious or spiritual) influenced the diagnostic or prognostic judgments of most psychologists. The analysis of the second model yielded significant results-but, unexpectedly, an inverse clinical judgment faith bias was found for the prognostic judgments of highly spiritual psychologists. The more spiritual (but not religious) psychologists were, the more they responded to socially deviant cases by making more positive prognostic judgments. Furthermore, a multicultural knowledge prognostic bias was found-the more multicultural knowledge (but not awareness) psychologists had, the more positive prognostic judgments they made for all cases. These findings are unexpected, contradict predictions, and must be interpreted with caution but suggest prognostic overshadowing, an entirely unanticipated bias in the clinical judgments of spiritual and multicultural psychologists.

show abstract

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%