Cited by 34Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsInnovations in Medical Education

Understanding and addressing cognitive bias in medical education

Open access
Hershberger, Paul J., Markert, Ronald J., Part, Howard M., Cohen, Steven M., Finger, William W.·1996·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Cognitive biases can impede the utilization of logical/statistical strategies in clinical decision-making. This paper reports on research and educational findings using the Inventory of Cognitive Biases in Medicine (ICBM). The ICBM was administered to groups of medical students before their clinical years and to practicing physicians to determine (a) the extent of cognitive bias in medical decision-making and whether experienced physicians differed from novices, (b) whether cognitive bias varied by medical speciality and (c) whether awareness of cognitive bias in medical decision-making could be taught. Preclinical medical students' mean score (41 %) was near the chance level (42%). While practicing physicians scored higher (49%), they also demonstrated considerable susceptibility to cognitive bias. Cognitive bias varied by medical speciality with internal medicine physicians (57%) scoring best on the ICBM. A controlled educational research study with preclinical medical students showed that learners exposed to a seminar on cognitive bias in medical decision-making scored better on the ICBM than their peers (55% vs. 41%, p < 0.001). Susceptibility to cognitive bias was found to be present substantially among both novices and experts in medicine, but carefully crafted educational strategies in both classroom and clinical settings may lessen the problem.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00162919

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hershberger, P. J., Markert, R. J., Part, H. M., Cohen, S. M., & Finger, W. W.
Affiliations
Wright State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hershberger, Paul J.
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
1996-01
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
221-226
ISSN
1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1509618965
Cited by
34
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of Bioresource Management (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of Bioresource Management (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
cognitive biases, clinical decision-making, medical students, physicians, physician specialty differences, preclinical education, clinical reasoning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review