The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices
Open accessAbstract
In two studies the role of biomedical knowledge in the diagnosis of clinical cases was explored. Experiment 1 demonstrated a decrease in the use of biomedical knowledge with increasing expertise. This result appeared to be at variance with some findings reported in the literature (e.g., Lesgold, 1984), but supported those of others (e.g., Patel, Evans, & Groen, 1989). In Experiment 2, three possible explanations for this phenomenon were investigated: (1) rudimentation of biomedical knowledge, (2) inertia, and (3) encapsulation of biomedical knowledge under higher order concepts. Using a combined think-aloud and post-hoc explanation methodology, it was shown that experts have more in-depth biomedical knowledge than novices and subjects at intermediate levels of expertise. The findings generally support a three-stage model of expertise development in medicine consisting of acquisition of biomedical knowledge, practical experience, and integration of theoretical and experiental knowledge resulting in knowledge encapsulation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2018) · Knowing, Learning, and Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315044408-14 · Cited by 3,674
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., Newman, S. E., & Montclair State University (1988) · Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children · doi:10.5840/thinking19888129 · Cited by 1,299
Accretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three Modes of Learning
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1976) · doi:10.21236/ada030406 · Cited by 609
Cited by
EXPERT AND EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273 · Cited by 2,139
Expert performance: its structure and acquisition.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.8.725 · Cited by 2,072
Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006) · Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2 · Cited by 1,441
Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends
Norman, G. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x · Cited by 1,018
Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86
Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.889290 · Cited by 935
Metadata
- Authors
- Boshuizen, H.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 153-184
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165296995
- Cited by
- 565
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0364-0213(92)90022-m
- The paper
- Boshuizen, H. (1992). On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(92)90022-m
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
