Abstract
The literature indicates that clinical judgement may sometimes be adversely affected by clinical training. It is suggested that this reflects qualitative changes in the modes of clinical listening, modes of inference, and relative weights given to stereotypic and individual information. A theoretical discussion of this issue focuses mainly on the hypothesis that training leads to relatively high-risk strategies of judgement, and on the construct validity of analytic and non-analytic judgement. It is suggested that clinical training needs to give separate attention to the use of objective 'low-risk' and of more intuitive styles of clinical judgement, and to consider the judicious combination of these. Practical approaches to both kinds of training are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
