Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T04:58:15.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Experience on the Thought Process of Clinical Psychologists: An Analysis from the Dual-Process Theories Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2020

Ana M. Nieto Open the ORCID record for Ana M. Nieto [Opens in a new window]  and
María R. Villarejo Open the ORCID record for María R. Villarejo [Opens in a new window]
Ana M. Nieto*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca (Spain)
María R. Villarejo
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ana M. Nieto. Departamento de Psicología Básica, Psicobiología, y Metodología de las Ciencias de Comportamiento de la Universidad de Salamanca. Av. De la Merced, 109. 37008 Salamanca (Spain). E-mail: acarracedo@usal.es.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the course of their work, psychologists must make judgments and complex decisions, skills that are part of clinical reasoning. Recent models approach the analysis of such process using the dual-process theories framework. This study provides an assessment of the two systems, System 1 and System 2, in forty-five clinical psychologists with different levels of experience (novices, intermediates and experts) with the purpose of exploring their level of activation and evolution throughout such stages of expertise. According to the results, clinical psychologists mainly activate System 2, M = 70.91, SD = 6.71, than System 1, M = 60.49, SD = 3.78; $ {F}_{\left(1,\kern0.5em 41\right)}=7.99;p<.01;{\upeta}^2=.163, $ when performing their clinical duties. However, no significant changes have been observed regarding the preferential use of thinking Systems 1 or 2 throughout the experience, both systems are used in a similar way in the different levels of expertise analyzed, with an increase of System 2 at the intermediate level of expertise. The results are analyzed in terms of intermediate effect and discussed focusing on the unremitting need for System 2 in psychologist work given the idiosyncratic characteristics of each case requiring treatment in the area of psychology and on the relationship of the two systems in clinical reasoning.

Keywords

clinical reasoningdual-process theoryintermediate effectSystem 1System 2
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 23 , 2020 , e16
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Funding Statement: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Balla, J. I., Heneghan, C., Glasziou, P., Thompson, M., & Balla, M. E. (2009). A model for reflection for good clinical practice: Model for reflection on practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(6), 964–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01243.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Carrier, A., Levasseur, M., Bédard, D., & Desrosiers, J. (2010). Community occupational therapists’ clinical reasoning: Identifying tacit knowledge. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 57(6), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2010.00875.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croskerry, P. (2009). Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: Applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(Suppl. 1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9182-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (2014). Cognitive-Experiential Theory: An integrative theory of personality. OUP USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eva, K. W. (2005). What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 39(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Spot the difference: Distinguishing between two kinds of processing. Mind & Society, 11(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0104-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, A., Cobos, P. L., López, F. J., & Godoy, A. (2014). Detecting fast, online reasoning processes in clinical decision making. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 660–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgs, J., Jones, M. A., Loftus, S., & Christensen, N. (2008). Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. (2002). Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 654. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.394920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, M., Hurley, J., Kozlowski, D., & Whitehair, L. (2018). The use of emotional intelligence capabilities in clinical reasoning and decision-making: A qualitative, exploratory study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(3–4), e600–e610. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Kulatunga-Moruzi, C., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2001). Coordination of analytic and similarity-based processing strategies and expertise in dermatological diagnosis. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 13(2), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1302_6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mamede, S., Schmidt, H. G., Rikers, R. M. J. P., Penaforte, J. C., & Coelho-Filho, J. M. (2007). Breaking down automaticity: Case ambiguity and the shift to reflective approaches in clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 41(12), 1185–1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02921.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcum, J. A. (2012). An integrated model of clinical reasoning: Dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition: Integrated model of clinical reasoning. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(5), 954–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01900.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neufeld, V. R., Norman, G. R., Feightner, J. W., & Barrows, H. S. (1981). Clinical problem-solving by medical students: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Medical Education, 15(5), 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1981.tb02495.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, G. (2005). Research in clinical reasoning: Past history and current trends. Medical Education, 39(4), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, G. R., Brooks, L. R., Colle, C. L., & Hatala, R. M. (1999). The benefit of diagnostic hypotheses in clinical reasoning: Experimental study of an instructional intervention for forward and backward reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, G. R., & Eva, K. W. (2010). Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 44(1), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03507.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, G., Young, M. E., & Brooks, L. (2007). Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: The role of experience. Medical Education, 41(12), 1140–1145. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02914.xGoogle Scholar
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972–987. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.6.972CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., & Zhang, J. (2005). Thinking and reasoning in Medicine. Holyoak, En K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 727–750). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. Ericsson, En K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 93–125). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pelaccia, T., Tardif, J., Triby, E., & Charlin, B. (2011). An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: The dual-process theory. Medical Education Online, 16.Article 5890, https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, H. G., Norman, G. R., & Boshuizen, H. P. (1990). A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: Theory and implication. Academic Medicine, 65(10), 611–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanovich, K. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. OUP USA.Google Scholar
Thirsk, L. M., Moore, S. G., & Keyko, K. (2014). Influences on clinical reasoning in family and psychosocial interventions in nursing practice with patients and their families living with chronic kidney disease. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(9), 2117–2127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12370CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, G., & Schroeder, M. (2015). What comes before report writing? Attending to clinical reasoning and thinking errors in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914562212CrossRefGoogle Scholar