Cited by 594Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPatient Safety and Medication Errors

The Causes of Errors in Clinical Reasoning: Cognitive Biases, Knowledge Deficits, and Dual Process Thinking

Open access
Norman, Geoffrey R., Monteiro, Sandra D., Sherbino, Jonathan, Ilgen, Jonathan S., Schmidt, Henk G., Mamede, Silvia·2017·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Contemporary theories of clinical reasoning espouse a dual processing model, which consists of a rapid, intuitive component (Type 1) and a slower, logical and analytical component (Type 2). Although the general consensus is that this dual processing model is a valid representation of clinical reasoning, the causes of diagnostic errors remain unclear. Cognitive theories about human memory propose that such errors may arise from both Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning. Errors in Type 1 reasoning may be a consequence of the associative nature of memory, which can lead to cognitive biases. However, the literature indicates that, with increasing expertise (and knowledge), the likelihood of errors decreases. Errors in Type 2 reasoning may result from the limited capacity of working memory, which constrains computational processes. In this article, the authors review the medical literature to answer two substantial questions that arise from this work: (1) To what extent do diagnostic errors originate in Type 1 (intuitive) processes versus in Type 2 (analytical) processes? (2) To what extent are errors a consequence of cognitive biases versus a consequence of knowledge deficits? The literature suggests that both Type 1 and Type 2 processes contribute to errors. Although it is possible to experimentally induce cognitive biases, particularly availability bias, the extent to which these biases actually contribute to diagnostic errors is not well established. Educational strategies directed at the recognition of biases are ineffective in reducing errors; conversely, strategies focused on the reorganization of knowledge to reduce errors have small but consistent benefits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000001421

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norman, G. R., Monteiro, S. D., Sherbino, J., Ilgen, J. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Mamede, S.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • S. Mamedeis associate professor, Department of Psychology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Corresponding author
Norman, Geoffrey R.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2017-01
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
23-30
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2545846385
Cited by
594
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 1
FWCI
45.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diagnostic errors, clinical reasoning, dual-process theory, cognitive biases, availability bias, knowledge deficit, working memory, expertise, associative memory, knowledge restructuring, medical education
MeSH terms
Cognition, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Memory, Thinking, Bias

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