Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026
The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
Published on: June 12, 2020
The etiology of diagnostic errors: a controlled trial of system 1 versus system 2 reasoning
Geoffrey Norman1, Jonathan Sherbino, Kelly Dore
1Dr. Norman is professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Sherbino is associate professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Dore is assistant professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Wood is associate professor, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Young is assistant professor, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Quebec, Canada. Dr. Gaissmaier is chief research scientist, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Plank Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. Ms. Kreuger is research coordinator, Program for Educational Research and Development, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. Ms. Monteiro is a PhD candidate, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Purpose:
Diagnostic errors are thought to arise from cognitive biases associated with System 1 reasoning, which is rapid and unconscious. The primary hypothesis of this study was that the instruction to be slow and thorough will have no advantage in diagnostic accuracy over the instruction to proceed rapidly.
Method:
Participants were second-year residents who volunteered after they had taken the Medical Council of Canada (MCC) Qualifying Examination Part II. Participants were tested at three Canadian medical schools (McMaster, Ottawa, and McGill) in 2010 (n = 96) and 2011 (n = 108). The intervention consisted of 20 computer-based internal medicine cases, with instructions either (1) to be as quick as possible but not make mistakes (the Speed cohort, 2010), or (2) to be careful, thorough, and reflective (the Reflect cohort, 2011). The authors examined accuracy scores on the 20 cases, time taken to diagnose cases, and MCC examination performance.
Results:
Overall accuracy in the Speed condition was 44.5%, and in the Reflect condition was 45.0%; this was not significant. The Speed cohort took an average of 69 seconds per case versus 89 seconds for the Reflect cohort (P < .001). In both cohorts, cases diagnosed incorrectly took an average of 17 seconds longer than cases diagnosed correctly. Diagnostic accuracy was moderately correlated with performance on both written and problem-solving components of the MCC licensure examination and inversely correlated with time.
Conclusions:
The study demonstrates that simply encouraging slowing down and increasing attention to analytical thinking is insufficient to increase diagnostic accuracy.
Related Concept Videos
01:37Reason and Intuition
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
01:20Random and Systematic Errors
01:20Random and Systematic Errors
01:10Documentation of Nursing Diagnosis
In some settings, data-driven computerized decision support systems are in place, allowing for more accurate nursing diagnoses. The database within one of these systems includes diagnostic labels defining characteristics, activities, and indicators for nursing. A nurse enters...
01:29Theory of Attribution II: Kelley's Covariation Theory