The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition
Abstract
Rationale and aim: Clinical reasoning is an important component for providing quality medical care. The aim of the present paper is to develop a model of clinical reasoning that integrates both the non‐analytic and analytic processes of cognition, along with metacognition. Method: The dual‐process theory of cognition (system 1 non‐analytic and system 2 analytic processes) and the metacognition theory are used to develop an integrated model of clinical reasoning. Results: In the proposed model, clinical reasoning begins with system 1 processes in which the clinician assesses a patient's presenting symptoms, as well as other clinical evidence, to arrive at a differential diagnosis. Additional clinical evidence, if necessary, is acquired and analysed utilizing system 2 processes to assess the differential diagnosis, until a clinical decision is made diagnosing the patient's illness and then how best to proceed therapeutically. Importantly, the outcome of these processes feeds back, in terms of metacognition's monitoring function, either to reinforce or to alter cognitive processes, which, in turn, enhances synergistically the clinician's ability to reason quickly and accurately in future consultations. Conclusions: The proposed integrated model has distinct advantages over other models proposed in the literature for explicating clinical reasoning. Moreover, it has important implications for addressing the paradoxical relationship between experience and expertise, as well as for designing a curriculum to teach clinical reasoning skills.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This paper discusses DPT within the context of clinical reasoning.”
From The Ergonomics of Learning: A Proposed Update to Bloom’s Taxonomy (2025) · cites this paper as Marcum J. A. (2012)
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
Ericsson, K. A. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022 · Cited by 2,988
Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674189089 · Cited by 1,377
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Stanovich, K. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001 · Cited by 1,041
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
A Universal Model of Diagnostic Reasoning
Croskerry, P. (2009) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181ace703 · Cited by 1,016
Educational Strategies to Promote Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning
Bowen, J. L. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054782 · Cited by 931
Research works printed but not linked: 51
- Benner P., 2008, Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence‐Based Handbook for Nurses, 1
- 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00252.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s11017-009-9110-8 · DOI
- Bowen J. L., 2010, Theory and Practice of Teaching Medicine, 1
- Rencic J., 2010, Teaching in the Hospital, 67
- 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01243.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1009978315185 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11606-010-1524-5 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.282.9.833 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01771.x · DOI
- 10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0002 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00330.x · DOI
- Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow
- Polanyi M., 1966, The Tacit Dimension
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2011.12.001 · DOI
- 10.1067/mem.2003.22 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10459-009-9194-y · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00340.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s11406-010-9279-0 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001888-200508000-00014 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02911.x · DOI
- Patel V. L., 2005, Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, 727
- 10.1126/science.130.3366.9 · DOI
- Barrows H. S., 1980, Problem‐Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education
- Kassirer J. P., 2010, Learning Clinical Reasoning
- Sox H. C., 2007, Medical Decision Making
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1987.tb00671.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1982.tb01214.x · DOI
- 10.1093/jmp/11.2.167 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01148.x · DOI
- McGuire C. H., 1985, Medical problem‐solving: a critique of the literature, Journal of Medical Education, 60, 587
- 10.1023/A:1009784330364 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM198205273062104 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02914.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s11017-009-9106-4 · DOI
- Goldman G. M., 1990, The tacit dimension of clinical judgment, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 63, 47
- 10.1007/s11017-006-9005-x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01387.x · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00998544 · DOI
- 10.1186/1747‐5341‐1‐2 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-009-9399-0_12 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03507.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s10459-009-9184-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7326/0003-4819-123-10-199511150-00011 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02921.x · DOI
- 10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_3 · DOI
- 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181405a76 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.159 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bias in Radiology: The How and Why of Misses and Misinterpretations
Busby, L. P., Courtier, J. L., & Glastonbury, C. M. (2018) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.2018170107 · Cited by 277
Liou, S., Liu, H., Tsai, H., Tsai, Y., Lin, Y., Chang, C., & Cheng, C. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12831 · Cited by 104
Clinical judgement in the era of big data and predictive analytics
Chin‐Yee, B., & Upshur, R. (2018) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12852 · Cited by 59
Colbert, C. Y., Graham, L., West, C., White, B. A., Arroliga, A. C., Myers, J. D., Ogden, P. E., Archer, J., Mohammad, Z. T. A., & Clark, J. (2015) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.11.001 · Cited by 59
The Bobath concept (NDT) in adult neurorehabilitation: a scoping review of conceptual literature
Marques, S., Vaughan-Graham, J., Costa, R., & Figueiredo, D. (2025) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2375054 · Cited by 8
“Bobath clinical reasoning has been shown to be consistent with current knowledge [46,62,63], but also uses a unique feature described as “visuospatial-kinesthetic perception” [51].”
The Ergonomics of Learning: A Proposed Update to Bloom’s Taxonomy
Curtis, A., & Johansson, A. (2025) · Intersection: A Journal at the Intersection of Assessment and Learning · doi:10.61669/001c.142595
Metadata
- Authors
- Marcum, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Medical Humanities Program Department of Philosophy Baylor University Waco TX USA
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-09-21
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 954-961
- ISSN
- 1356-1294
- 1365-2753
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
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