Multimethod study of clinical judgment

Paul E Johnson, Frank Hassebrock, Alicia S. Durán, James H Moller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

50 Scopus citations


Expert and novice clinicians judged the likelihood of disease alternatives and gave thinking-aloud protocols as they evaluated simulated cases of congenital heart disease. Specific combinations of cues in the patient data were manipulated to create alternate versions of a single case so that the use of critical cues could be identified. Analyses of variance of subjects' disease judgments revealed differences between expert and novice clinicians in their use of critical cues and cue combinations. Analyses of the thinking-aloud protocols revealed that clinicians with different degrees of expertise employed different interpretations of patient data cues as well as qualitatively distinct "lines of reasoning" in reaching clinical judgments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-230
Number of pages30
JournalOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance
Issue number2
StatePublished - Oct 1982

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Multimethod study of clinical judgment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this