The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Narrative Nature of Clinical Reasoning
Abstract
Narrative reasoning is a central mode of clinical reasoning in occupational therapy. Therapists reason narratively when they are concerned with disability as an illness experience, that is, with how a physiological condition is affecting a person’s life. In this paper, narrative reasoning is contrasted with propositional reasoning, and two kinds of narrative thinking are examined. The first is the use of narrative as a mode of speech that can be contrasted with biomedical discourse, in which disability is framed as physical pathology. The second involves the creation rather than the telling of stories. Therapists try to “emplot” therapeutic encounters with patients, that is, to help create a therapeutic story that becomes a meaningful short story in the larger life story of the patient.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“Evidence suggests that the most common medical error results from inadequate clinical reasoning [3, 9].”
From The virtual patient as a learning tool: a mixed quantitative qualitative study (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing
Tanner, C. A. (2006) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20060601-04 · Cited by 1,748
Hydén, L. (1997) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00040 · Cited by 783
Clinical Reasoning Strategies in Physical Therapy
Edwards, I., Jones, M. A., Carr, J., Braunack‐Mayer, A., & Jensen, G. M. (2004) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/84.4.312 · Cited by 490
The concept of therapeutic ‘emplotment’
Mattingly, C. (1994) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90153-8 · Cited by 407
Self-citationInnovations in the systematic review of text and opinion
McArthur, A., Klugárová, J., Yan, H., & Florescu, S. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000060 · Cited by 254
“(1) Types of text (2) Those represented (3) Stated allegiance / position (4) Setting (5) Geographical context (6) Cultural context (7) Logic of argument (8) Author’s conclusions (9) Reviewer’s comments”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Mattingly, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mattingly, Cheryl
- ORCID
- Mattingly, Cheryl
- Venue
- American Journal of Occupational Therapy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-11
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 998-1005
- ISSN
- 0272-9490 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7676
- OpenAlex
- W2141806496
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 20.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Occupational Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
- Keywords
- narrative thinking, clinical reasoning, occupational therapy, propositional reasoning, biomedical discourse, emplotment, therapeutic stories, life stories, narrative therapy
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Communication, Creativity, Female, Humans, Imagination, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Occupational Therapy, Problem Solving, Professional-Patient Relations, Thinking
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
