Abstract
The current debate on clinical reasoning revolves primarily around Dual-Process Theory. This theory suggests that there are two distinctively separate cognitive systems underlying thinking and reasoning; commonly referred to as System 1 and System 2.1 System 1 is considered intuitive, fast and reliant on automatic activation of “illness scripts” stored in memory and leading to effortless pattern recognition. System 2 on the other hand is considered analytic, slow, deliberate, and systematic. The clinical reasoning literature is divided; one group of researchers defending System 1 reasoning as the hallmark of expert decision-making, whereas the other camp of researchers considers System 2 reasoning as superior and more likely to achieve diagnostic accuracy.2,3 Some also argue that System 2 is less prone to biases (premature closure, confirmation bias etc.).4
Recommended Citation
Rotgans, Jerome. I.; Low-Beer, Naomi; and Rosby, Lucy Victoria
(2016)
"The relevance of neuroscientific research for understanding clinical reasoning,"
Health Professions Education: Vol. 2:
Iss.
1, Article 1.
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpe.2016.02.001
Available at:
https://hpe.researchcommons.org/journal/vol2/iss1/1
