维持医生医学专业知识的认知视角:III.自我评估的优势和劣势。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Scott H Fraundorf, Zachary A Caddick, Timothy J Nokes-Malach, Benjamin M Rottman
{"title":"维持医生医学专业知识的认知视角:III.自我评估的优势和劣势。","authors":"Scott H Fraundorf, Zachary A Caddick, Timothy J Nokes-Malach, Benjamin M Rottman","doi":"10.1186/s41235-023-00511-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Is self-assessment enough to keep physicians' cognitive skills-such as diagnosis, treatment, basic biological knowledge, and communicative skills-current? We review the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment in the context of maintaining medical expertise. Cognitive science supports the importance of accurately self-assessing one's own skills and abilities, and we review several ways such accuracy can be quantified. However, our review also indicates a broad challenge in self-assessment is that individuals do not have direct access to the strength or quality of their knowledge and instead must infer this from heuristic strategies. These heuristics are reasonably accurate in many circumstances, but they also suffer from systematic biases. For example, information that feels easy to process in the moment can lead individuals to overconfidence in their ability to remember it in the future. Another notable phenomenon is the Dunning-Kruger effect: the poorest performers in a domain are also the least accurate in self-assessment. Further, explicit instruction is not always sufficient to remove these biases. We discuss what these findings imply about when physicians' self-assessment can be useful and when it may be valuable to supplement with outside sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"8 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10469193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: III. Strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Scott H Fraundorf, Zachary A Caddick, Timothy J Nokes-Malach, Benjamin M Rottman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41235-023-00511-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Is self-assessment enough to keep physicians' cognitive skills-such as diagnosis, treatment, basic biological knowledge, and communicative skills-current? We review the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment in the context of maintaining medical expertise. Cognitive science supports the importance of accurately self-assessing one's own skills and abilities, and we review several ways such accuracy can be quantified. However, our review also indicates a broad challenge in self-assessment is that individuals do not have direct access to the strength or quality of their knowledge and instead must infer this from heuristic strategies. These heuristics are reasonably accurate in many circumstances, but they also suffer from systematic biases. For example, information that feels easy to process in the moment can lead individuals to overconfidence in their ability to remember it in the future. Another notable phenomenon is the Dunning-Kruger effect: the poorest performers in a domain are also the least accurate in self-assessment. Further, explicit instruction is not always sufficient to remove these biases. We discuss what these findings imply about when physicians' self-assessment can be useful and when it may be valuable to supplement with outside sources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10469193/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00511-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00511-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自我评估是否足以保持医生的认知技能,如诊断、治疗、基本生物学知识和沟通技能?在保持医学专业知识的背景下,我们回顾了自我评估的认知优势和劣势。认知科学支持准确地自我评估自己的技能和能力的重要性,我们回顾了几种可以量化这种准确性的方法。然而,我们的综述也表明,自我评估中的一个广泛挑战是,个人无法直接获得其知识的强度或质量,而必须从启发式策略中推断出这一点。这些启发法在许多情况下都相当准确,但它们也存在系统性偏见。例如,当下感觉容易处理的信息可能会导致个人对自己未来记忆的能力过于自信。另一个值得注意的现象是邓-克鲁格效应:一个领域中表现最差的人在自我评估中也最不准确。此外,明确的指导并不总是足以消除这些偏见。我们讨论了这些发现对医生的自我评估何时有用以及何时利用外部来源进行补充可能有价值意味着什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: III. Strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment.

Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: III. Strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment.

Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: III. Strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment.

Is self-assessment enough to keep physicians' cognitive skills-such as diagnosis, treatment, basic biological knowledge, and communicative skills-current? We review the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment in the context of maintaining medical expertise. Cognitive science supports the importance of accurately self-assessing one's own skills and abilities, and we review several ways such accuracy can be quantified. However, our review also indicates a broad challenge in self-assessment is that individuals do not have direct access to the strength or quality of their knowledge and instead must infer this from heuristic strategies. These heuristics are reasonably accurate in many circumstances, but they also suffer from systematic biases. For example, information that feels easy to process in the moment can lead individuals to overconfidence in their ability to remember it in the future. Another notable phenomenon is the Dunning-Kruger effect: the poorest performers in a domain are also the least accurate in self-assessment. Further, explicit instruction is not always sufficient to remove these biases. We discuss what these findings imply about when physicians' self-assessment can be useful and when it may be valuable to supplement with outside sources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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