Cited by 11Innovative Education and Learning PracticesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical Education

Distributed and relative nature of professional expertise

Open access
Pillay, Hitendra, McCrindle, Andrea R.·2005·Studies in Continuing Education

Abstract

This exploratory study investigates the distributed nature and complexity of professional expertise by examining the patterns of cognitive processes in novices and experts who are using ultrasound technology to make diagnoses. The study aims to identify and provide an explanation for such patterns in light of the recent debate on the locus of control underpinning human cognition. A distributed model of professional expertise based on the relationships between the four elements of socio-cultural disposition, tools and artefacts, strategies, and domain knowledge, is used to discuss the results. The findings illustrate the complexity of professional expertise, particularly when individuals depend on sophisticated tools to assist their thinking and reasoning.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01580370500056497

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [12]12. Ericsson, K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds) (1991) Towards a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
  2. [22]22. Norman, D. A. (1991) Cognitive artefacts, in: J. Carroll (Ed.) Designing interaction (New York, Cambridge University Press), 17 38.
  3. [32]32. Schwartz, T. (1990) The structure of national cultures, in: P. Funke (Ed.) Understanding the USA (Tubingen, Gunter Narr), 110 149.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pillay, H., & McCrindle, A. R.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Pillay, Hitendra
Venue
Studies in Continuing Education
Published
2005-03
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
67-88
ISSN
  • 0158-037X (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-126X
OpenAlex
W1997032359
Cited by
11
References
46
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies in Continuing Education (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
professional expertise, distributed cognition, ultrasonography, novices and experts, locus of control, cognitive strategies, domain knowledge, expert 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