Inferential Reasoning Driving Clinical Diagnosis: Suggestions for New Assessment Approaches

Carol. Leroy, Yvonne Kammerer, Uwe Oestermeier, Karsten Büringer, M. Bitzer, Peter Gerjets
{"title":"Inferential Reasoning Driving Clinical Diagnosis: Suggestions for New Assessment Approaches","authors":"Carol. Leroy, Yvonne Kammerer, Uwe Oestermeier, Karsten Büringer, M. Bitzer, Peter Gerjets","doi":"10.1109/CBMS.2019.00113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experimental research investigating the processes or influencing factors of diagnostic reasoning or diagnostic success is predominantly conducted with case descriptions spanning no more than one A4 page. In this paper, we argue for a more authentic task setting in the form of multiple documents case descriptions, and make suggestions how to design them to suit different research questions. We further review methods used in previous studies, such as think-aloud protocols and written justifications of diagnoses, and discuss how they can be used in order to assess the cognitive processes underlying diagnostic reasoning in more detail. Additionally, based on findings from the field of multiple documents comprehension, we outline how participants' gaze behavior on and their interaction with the documents might also be used to assess processes of information comparison and corroboration during reading as part of participants' diagnostic reasoning process.","PeriodicalId":311634,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS)","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.2019.00113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Experimental research investigating the processes or influencing factors of diagnostic reasoning or diagnostic success is predominantly conducted with case descriptions spanning no more than one A4 page. In this paper, we argue for a more authentic task setting in the form of multiple documents case descriptions, and make suggestions how to design them to suit different research questions. We further review methods used in previous studies, such as think-aloud protocols and written justifications of diagnoses, and discuss how they can be used in order to assess the cognitive processes underlying diagnostic reasoning in more detail. Additionally, based on findings from the field of multiple documents comprehension, we outline how participants' gaze behavior on and their interaction with the documents might also be used to assess processes of information comparison and corroboration during reading as part of participants' diagnostic reasoning process.
推理推理驱动临床诊断:新评估方法的建议
调查诊断推理或诊断成功的过程或影响因素的实验研究主要以不超过一页A4纸的病例描述进行。在本文中,我们主张以多个文件案例描述的形式进行更真实的任务设置,并提出如何设计它们以适应不同的研究问题的建议。我们进一步回顾了以前研究中使用的方法,如有声思考协议和诊断的书面证明,并讨论了如何使用它们来更详细地评估诊断推理背后的认知过程。此外,基于多文件理解领域的研究结果,我们概述了参与者对文件的凝视行为及其与文件的互动如何也可用于评估阅读过程中的信息比较和确证过程,作为参与者诊断推理过程的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信