The Meta-Analysis of Clinical Judgment Project

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Spengler ◽  
Michael J. White ◽  
Stefanía Ægisdóttir ◽  
Alan S. Maugherman ◽  
Linda A. Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Counseling Psychology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Judgment Accuracy ◽  
Psychological Issues ◽  
Vocational Personality ◽  
Reliable Effect ◽  
D 12

Clinical and educational experience is one of the most commonly studied variables in clinical judgment research. Contrary to clinicians' perceptions, clinical judgment researchers have generally concluded that accuracy does not improve with increased education, training, or clinical experience. In this meta-analysis, the authors synthesized results from 75 clinical judgment studies where the experience of 4,607 clinicians was assessed in relation to the accuracy of their judgments about mental health (e.g., diagnosis, prognosis, treatment) and psychological issues (e.g., vocational, personality). The authors found a small but reliable effect, d = .12, showing that experience, whether educational or clinical, is positively associated with judgment accuracy. This small effect was robust across several tested moderator models, indicating experienced counselors and clinicians acquire, in general, almost a 13% increase in their decision-making accuracy, regardless of other factors. Results are discussed in light of their implications for clinical judgment research and for counseling psychology training and practice.

A meta-analysis of confidence and judgment accuracy in clinical decision making.

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J. Miller ◽  
Elliot S. Spengler ◽  
Paul M. Spengler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Judgment Accuracy

Experience and Clinical Judgment Accuracy: A Final Meta-Analysis

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Spengler ◽  
Michael J. White ◽  
Stefania Aegisdottir
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Judgment Accuracy

The Effect of Clinical Judgment in Decision-Making: The Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic.) and the Mental Health Review Board

2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-53
Author(s):  
Megan Pearson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Health Review

This article seeks to critically examine whether the reliance upon clinical judgment in decision-making under the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic.) (MHA) and the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) assists or hinders Parliament’s key objective in passing the current MHA in 1986: least restrictive treatment.

Improving Clinical Judgment and Decision Making in Forensic Evalution

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Borum ◽  
Randy Otto ◽  
Stephen Golding
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Forensic Evaluations ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Clinical Evaluations ◽  
Almost All

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are frequently involved as expert witnesses in legal proceedings. However, clinical judgment and decision making, which play a role in almost all clinical evaluations, have problems and limitations. Mental health professionals who conduct forensic examinations should be aware of these problems and take steps to address them. This article details the limitations of clinical judgment and decision making, and suggests ways to minimize associated problems, thereby improving the validity and utility of forensic evaluations.

scholarly journals Paramedic clinical judgment of mental illness: Representations of official accounts

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon Shaban
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Illness Representations ◽  
Historical Case Study ◽  
Historical Case

This paper is the fourth in a series that heralds a study that examines paramedic accounts and constructs of judgment and decision-making (JDM) of mental health and mental illness. This paper will provide the results of one stage of this study in which a discourse-historical case study of paramedic JDM of mental health and mental illness using ethnographic and ethnomethodological research methods was conducted. Preliminary themes describing the ways in which paramedics officially account for their judgments of mental illness will be presented.

scholarly journals Digital Shared Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Vitger ◽  
Lisa Korsbek ◽  
Stephen F. Austin ◽  
Lone Petersen ◽  
Merete Nordentoft ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Digital Interventions

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) in mental healthcare has received increased attention as a process to reinforce person-centered care. With the rapid development of digital health technology, researchers investigate how digital interventions may be utilized to support SDM. Despite the promise of digital interventions to support SDM, the effect of these in mental healthcare has not been evaluated before. Thus, this paper aims to assess the effect of SDM interventions complimented by digital technology in mental healthcare.Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of digital SDM interventions on patient outcomes as investigated in randomized trials.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on digital SDM interventions for people with a mental health condition. We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search strategy included terms relating to SDM, digital systems, mental health conditions, and study type. The primary outcome was patient activation or indices of the same (e.g., empowerment and self-efficacy), adherence to treatment, hospital admissions, severity of symptoms, and level of functioning. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction, decisional conflict, working alliance, usage, and adherence of medicine; and adverse events were defined as harms or side effects.Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria with outcome data from 2,400 participants. Digital SDM interventions had a moderate positive effect as compared with a control condition on patient activation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.56, CI: 0.10, 1.01, p = 0.02], a small effect on general symptoms (SMD = −0.17, CI: −0.31, −0.03, p = 0.02), and working alliance (SMD = 0.21, CI: 0.02, 0.41, p = 0.03) and for improving decisional conflict (SMD = −0.37, CI: −0.70, −0.05, p = 0.02). No effect was found on self-efficacy, other types of mental health symptoms, adverse events, or patient satisfaction. A total of 39 outcomes were narratively synthesized with results either favoring the intervention group or showing no significant differences between groups. Studies were generally assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) rating of low- or very low-quality evidence.Conclusions: Digital interventions to support SDM may be a promising tool in mental healthcare; but with the limited quality of research, we have little confidence in the estimates of effect. More quality research is needed to further assess the effectiveness of digital means to support SDM but also to determine which digital intervention features are most effective to support SDM.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020148132.

scholarly journals Theories of clinical judgment and decision-making: A review of the theoretical literature

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon Shaban
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Human Judgment ◽  
Theoretical Literature ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Do So

This paper provides a survey of the terrain of theories of human judgment and decision-making (JDM). It provides an introduction, overview, and some insight into the understanding of some conceptual theories, frameworks, and the literature of JDM. This paper is in no way an exhaustive meta-analysis of the literature on JDM, nor is it intended to be. It does not seek to categorise and compare existing theories of judgment and decision-making or critically evaluate each in terms of others, nor does it seek to reclassify existing categories. Indeed much of the debate in the literature is about that very issue—how researchers and theorists view, characterise, categorise and apply existing theory of JDM in existing philosophies, ‘schools-of-thought’, and professional domains. The problematic, controversial, and, in the view of some researchers, inappropriate attempts to do so are well-documented [1-4]. This paper will provide an overview of the competing accounts that various theories and philosophies place on judgment and decision-making.

Time Keeps on Ticking

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Spengler ◽  
Michael J. White ◽  
Stefanía Ægisdóttir ◽  
Alan S. Maugherman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Meta Analysis

In this rejoinder, the authors respond to reactions by Ridley and Shaw-Ridley and by Lichtenberg to their meta-analysis on the effects of experience on clinical judgment decision making accuracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document