Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience.

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Mental Health

Background:

• Clinical judgment is crucial in mental health practice.
• The impact of training and experience on judgment accuracy is debated.
• Understanding factors influencing clinical judgment is essential for effective practice.

Purpose of the Study:

• To review empirical studies on the relationship between training, experience, and clinical judgment.
• To evaluate the validity of clinical judgments based on experience and training.
• To identify reasons for difficulties in learning from experience and propose improvements.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review of studies examining training, experience, and clinical judgment.
• Analysis of validity data for judgments made by clinicians.
• Exploration of clinicians' ability to assess the accuracy of their own judgments.

Main Results:

• Evidence generally does not support the value of on-the-job experience for judgment validity in mental health.
• Training demonstrates limited but present validity for improving clinical judgment.
• Experienced clinicians show a superior ability to discern the correctness of their judgments compared to less experienced ones.

Conclusions:

• Clinical experience alone has limited proven validity in enhancing judgment accuracy.
• Formal training offers some benefits for clinical judgment, warranting further development.
• Improving clinicians' metacognitive skills regarding their judgment accuracy is key.
• Recommendations are provided to enhance both clinical training and practice for better outcomes.