Image Theory’s counting rule in clinical decision making: Does it describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts?
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2012, Vol 7, Issue 3
Abstract
The field of clinical decision making is polarized by two predominate views. One holds that treatment recommendations should conform with guidelines; the other emphasizes clinical expertise in reaching case-specific judgments. Previous work developed a test for a proposed alternative, that clinical judgment should systematically incorporate both general knowledge and patient-specific information. The test was derived from image theory’s two phase-account of decision making and its “simple counting rule”, which describes how possible courses of action are pre-screened for compatibility with standards and values. The current paper applies this rule to clinical forecasting, where practitioners indicate how likely a specific patient will respond favorably to a recommended treatment. Psychiatric trainees evaluated eight case vignettes that exhibited from 0 to 3 incompatible attributes. They made two forecasts, one based on a guideline recommendation, the other based on their own alternative. Both forecasts were predicted by equally- and unequally-weighted counting rules. Unequal weighting provided a better fit and exhibited a clearer rejection threshold, or point at which forecasts are not diminished by additional incompatibilities. The hypothesis that missing information is treated as an incompatibility was not confirmed. There was evidence that the rejection threshold was influenced by clinician preference. Results suggests that guidelines may have a de-biasing influence on clinical judgment. Subject to limitations pertaining to the subject sample and population, clinical paradigm, guideline, and study procedure, the data support the use of a compatibility test to describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts.
Authors and Affiliations
Paul R. Falzer and Melissa Garman
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677890
- DOI -
- Views 147
- Downloads 0
Solving stumpers, CRT and CRAT: Are the abilities related?
Bar-Hillel, Noah and Frederick (2018) studied a class of riddles they called stumpers, which have simple, but curiously elusive, solutions. A canonical example is: “Andy is Bobbie’s brother, but Bobbie is not Andy’s brot...
Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology
Prior research finds that liberals and conservatives process information differently. Predispositions toward intuitive versus reflective thinking may help explain this individual level variation. There have been few dire...
Savings, subgoals, and reference points
Decision makers often save money for a specific goal by forgoing discretionary consumption and instead putting the money toward the savings goal. We hypothesized that reference points can be exploited to enhance this typ...
Recognising the recognition heuristic for what it is (and what it’s not)
The diversity, ingenuity and differences of opinion displayed in the articles of the recent special issues on the recognition heuristic are testament to the power and theoretical fertility of a simple idea about the role...
Seeking advice: A sampling approach to advice taking
The present research addresses advice taking from a holistic perspective covering both advice seeking and weighting. We build on previous theorizing that assumes that underweighting of advice results from biased samples...