Is diagnostic ability related to relevant training and experience?

Lambert, Laura; Wertheimer, M. R.

doi:10.1037/0735-7028.19.1.50

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results suggest that without using the decision trees, participants who have less than 15 weeks of training or experience with the DSM-III-R do not make as accurate a diagnosis as those participants with 15 or more weeks of training or experience. These results are consistent with those of Lambert and Wertheimer (1988), who showed that diagnostic ability is related to training and experience. However, when the less-experienced participants used the decision trees this difference disappeared.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 95%

“…ever, on class diagnostic accuracy, the experienced participants were significantly more accurate than the no-experience participants only. These results substantiated Lambert and Wertheimer's (1988) study in that experienced participants made more accurate diagnosis.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Experiment 2 expands upon Experiment 1 and addresses some of the limitations in the original study. Lambert and Wertheimer (1988) found that diagnostic accuracy increases significantly with relevant education and relevant experience. A study by Webb, Gold, Johnstone, and Diclemente (1981) showed that after a two and one half day training program, participants with no previous DSM-III exposure were able to agree with an "expert opinion" on 74% of diagnoses of videotaped cases.…”

Section: Do the Dsm Decision Trees Improve Diagnostic Ability?mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do the DSM decision trees improve diagnostic ability?

Morgan¹,

Olson²,

Krueger³

et al. 2000

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiment 1 examined whether the use of the DSM-III-R decision trees increased the accuracy of DSM-III-R diagnoses. Results indicated that the use of the decision trees interacted with the level of DSM-III-R experience to affect diagnostic accuracy. The use of the decision trees resulted in a modest increase in diagnostic accuracy for participants with less DSM-III-R experience; for participants with more DSM-III-R experience, the use of the decision trees had no significant effect on diagnostic accuracy. Experiment 2 examined whether the use of the DSM-III-R decision trees increased the accuracy and confidence and decreased the time of DSM-III-R diagnosis across participants with varying levels of DSM-III-R experience. The primary analyses consisted of a 3 ϫ 2 ϫ 2-multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine whether the use of the decision trees increased diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic confidence and decreased diagnostic time. Results indicated (1) the experienced participants made more accurate diagnoses than the less-experienced and no-experience participants; (2) the decision trees, combined with practice, increased class diagnostic accuracy and decreased diagnostic time; and (3) participants were more confident in their diagnosis when they used the decision trees than when they did not use the decision trees. Supplementary analyses consisted of two one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures and indicated that participants' preference for and knowledge of how to use the decision trees did not significantly affect their diagnostic accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 95%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Do the Dsm Decision Trees Improve Diagnostic Ability?mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do the DSM decision trees improve diagnostic ability?

Morgan¹,

Olson²,

Krueger³

et al. 2000

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the past, expertise has been defined using criteria of clinical experience. The difficulty in determining the relationship between experience and diagnostic reasoning has been pointed out by Lambert and Wertheimer (1988). In their study of diagnosis Lambert and Wertheimer found diagnostic reasoning ability when examining an inexperienced sample.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Reasoning Skill Differences Between Expert and Novice Counselors

Hillerbrand¹,

Claiborn

1990

Jour of Counseling & Develop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in identifying the complex cognitive skills that constitute counseling expertise. Research from cognitive psychology suggests significant differences between experts and novices in their reasoning. This study examines the reasoning of expert and novice counselors engaged in a diagnostic task. Cases varied on “problem structure”—the extent to which problem‐relevant information was clear and apparent. While an expertise by problem structure interaction was hypothesized, most of the differences were found across case type. Results suggest that the structure of the diagnostic problem may be an important variable affecting reasoning. The importance of problem structure for future research and training is discussed.

show abstract

“…Although some research suggests training improves diagnosis (e.g. Brammer, 2002; Lambert & Wertheimer, 1988; see Spengler, White, Ægisdóttir, & Maugherman, 2009, for a review), others found no such effect (e.g. Ganzach, 1997; Hillerbrand & Claiborn, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory for Patient Information as a Function of Experience in Mental Health

Marsh

Ahn

2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Mental health clinicians are tasked to diagnose and treat the millions of people worldwide seeking help for mental health issues. This paper investigates the memory clinicians have for patient information. We hypothesize that clinicians encapsulate mental health knowledge through experience into more abstract concepts, as in other domains changing what clinicians remember about patients compared with non-professionals. We tested memory for realistic patient–therapist interactions in experienced clinicians, intermediately trained graduate students, and laypeople. Clinicians recalled fewer facts than intermediate trainees and as many as laypeople. Furthermore, clinicians reported more abstracted information than all other participants, providing the first empirical demonstration of knowledge encapsulation in the memory of mental health clinicians. We discuss how our results fit into the existing literature on clinical expertise in mental health and the implications of our findings for future research relevant to mental health care.

show abstract

Is diagnostic ability related to relevant training and experience?

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Do the DSM decision trees improve diagnostic ability?

Do the DSM decision trees improve diagnostic ability?

Examining Reasoning Skill Differences Between Expert and Novice Counselors

Memory for Patient Information as a Function of Experience in Mental Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About