CP: Lecture 15 Diagnostics and Assessment II Flashcards
3 types of judgement
layman judgement (heeft er geen verstand van, ongeleerd)
clinical judgement
psychological assessment PA
Method clinical judgement=
Unstructured interview and observation
heuristics of clinical judgement
- Clinicians using clinical judgment evaluate only about 50% of the key
criteria of structured interviews (Miller et al. 2001) - Symptoms that had been described as forming part of a causal relation are weighed more heavily (Wakefield et al. 1999; Kim & Ahn
2002) - Clinicians using clinical judgement often form diagnoses by
comparing clients to ‘prototypes’ (e.g. Evans et al. 2002).
stereotyping bias clinicians voorbeeld
Experienced diagnosticians
over-classify antisocial pd and
under-classify depression
>100% in homeless people
using clinical judgement
(North et al, 1997)
bias (un)availability
Experienced diagnosticians
under-classify social phobia,
body dysmorphia, obsessive-
compulsive disorder and
somatoform disorders in
psychiatric patients when
using clinical judgement
premature closure
Especially comorbid classifications are missed.
Diagnosticians using clinical judgement tend to stop after
1 classification.
why PA?
To reduce bias in the decision-making processes inherent to
clinical judgement
pa instrument soorten
- Structured interviews
- Self- and informant-report questionnaires
- IQ tests and neuropsychological tests
- Observational rating scales
- (Projective tests)
not yet in pa
- Psychophysiological assessment
- Neuro-imaging techniques
- EMA: Ecological Momentary Assessment
illusory correlation bias
perceing a relationship that does not actually exist
accuracy vs meaningfullness
excessive data collection bias=
large unfocused data collection leads to false positive results
self response bias
Bias created by the respondent due to i.e.
social desirability, self-perception, mood states etc.
confirmation bias
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one’s initial belief
how to conduct a good pa
▪ In advance, draw up multiple, conceptually sound hypotheses and convert them to empirically supported testable predications. Take both verification and falsification into account
▪ Apply reliable and valid instruments in a focused manner. Consider a multimethod and multi-informant approach. Examine all hypotheses.
▪ Base your conclusions on the testable predictions. Weigh the empirical support of your findings appropriately. Be honest about test results vs. interpretations
▪ Stay critical about your own reasoning and the limitations of PA. Use (re-)training, intervision and supervision
dus samenvatting how to conduct a good pa
- multiple hypotheses
- multimethod and multi informant approach, of all hypotheses
- weigh empirical support of all findings
- be honest about results
- stay critical of own reasoning