The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scripts and clinical reasoning
Abstract
Context Each clinical encounter represents an amazing series of psychological events: perceiving the features of the situation; quickly accessing relevant hypotheses; checking for signs and symptoms that confirm or rule out competing hypotheses, and using related knowledge to guide appropriate investigations and treatment. Objective Script theory, issued from cognitive psychology, provides explanations of how these events are mentally processed. This essay is aimed at clinical teachers who are interested in basic sciences of education. It describes the script concept and how it applies in medicine via the concept of the ‘illness script’. Methods Script theory asserts that, to give meaning to a new situation in our environment, we use goal‐directed knowledge structures adapted to perform tasks efficiently. These integrated networks of prior knowledge lead to expectations, as well as to inferences and actions. Expectations and actions embedded in scripts allow subjects to make predictions about features that may or may not be encountered in a situation, to check these features in order to adequately interpret (classify) the situation, and to act appropriately. Conclusions Theory raises questions about how illness scripts develop and are refined with clinical experience. It also provides a framework to assist their acquisition.
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
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
Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success
Coderre, S., Mandin, H., Harasym, P. H., & Fick, G. H. (2003) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01577.x · Cited by 359
Cognitive Science in Medicine: Biomedical Modeling
(1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1878.001.0001 · Cited by 77
Cited by
Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps
Cook, D. A., & Triola, M. M. (2009) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x · Cited by 624
Checklists Improve Experts’ Diagnostic Decisions
Sibbald, M., de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12080 · Cited by 92
Mental workload as a key factor in clinical decision making
Byrne, A. (2013) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9360-5 · Cited by 47
Adeponle, A. B., Groleau, D., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2015) · Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s11013-014-9408-5 · Cited by 36
(2013) · doi:10.4236/ce.2013.46a008 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Custers, E. J., & Feltovich, P. J.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-11-28
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1178-1184
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2122612736
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Scripts and clinical reasoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02924.x
- The paper
- Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Custers, E. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2007). Scripts and clinical reasoning. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02924.x
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.