Making Sense of Client Data: Clinical Experience and Confirmationism Revisited

Abstract

MAKING SENSE OF CLIENT DATA: CLINICAL EXPERIENCE AND CONFIRMATIONISM REVISITEDThe primacy effect in information processing, as evidenced in the "configural" model for person perception developed by Asch (1946Asch ( , 1997Fiske & Taylor, 1991), has important implications for information processing in counseling and psychotherapy. This model states that an initial, global impression of another's personality exerts pressure on later, relevant information to take on meaning consistent with the initial impression. In this perspective, the point at which critical client information is revealed in a clinical session can seriously affect the formulation of diagnoses and the "Mailing address:

Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense:caveat emptor

“…Sladeczek et al (2006), reporting on accuracy in clinical judgment, posit several reasons why increased experience in clinical practice does not result in improved accuracy in clinical judgments. The reasons included the following: absence of an authoritative psychotherapy knowledge base; fuzzy diagnostic taxa; absence of reliable feedback; and a large number of potentially relevant variables.…”

“…The disconfirmation bias, according to Tversky and Kahneman (1974) reflects that once a choice has been made, regardless of the individual's awareness of the choice, supporting evidence will be sought, and potentially disconfirming evidence eschewed. Correspondingly, the confirmation bias (Sladeczek et al , 2006) argues that people tend to search for evidence that supports their positions, potentially giving that evidence greater weight. Simply, unless challenged to do otherwise, people may intuitively seek that which they wish to find, and ignore that which they do not wish to find.…”

Professional practice guidelines for occupationally mandated psychological evaluations.

“…The importance of maintaining objectivity is clearly stated in the EPPCC (APA, 2010), the AAPL (2005), and the SGFP. Nevertheless, research has shown that psychologists are not immune to the influence of bias (Borum, Otto, & Golding, 1993;Faust, 2012), regardless of years of experience (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000;Sladeczek, Dumont, Martel, & Karagiannakis, 2006). As such, psychologists strive to become familiar with the most common sources of bias that may affect their objectivity.…”