ABSTRACT
In the course of their work, psychologists must make judgments and complex decisions, skills that are part of clinical reasoning. Recent models approach the analysis of such process using the dual-process theories framework. This study provides an assessment of the two systems, System 1 and System 2, in forty-five clinical psychologists with different levels of experience (novices, intermediates and experts) with the purpose of exploring their level of activation and evolution throughout such stages of expertise. According to the results, clinical psychologists mainly activate System 2, M = 70.91, SD = 6.71, than System 1, M = 60.49, SD = 3.78; $ {F}_{\left(1,\kern0.5em 41\right)}=7.99;p<.01;{\upeta}^2=.163, $ when performing their clinical duties. However, no significant changes have been observed regarding the preferential use of thinking Systems 1 or 2 throughout the experience, both systems are used in a similar way in the different levels of expertise analyzed, with an increase of System 2 at the intermediate level of expertise. The results are analyzed in terms of intermediate effect and discussed focusing on the unremitting need for System 2 in psychologist work given the idiosyncratic characteristics of each case requiring treatment in the area of psychology and on the relationship of the two systems in clinical reasoning.
Subject(s)
Clinical Competence , Clinical Reasoning , Health Personnel , Psychological Theory , Psychology, Clinical , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
In the course of their work, psychologists must make judgments and complex decisions, skills that are part of clinical reasoning. Recent models approach the analysis of such process using the dual-process theories framework. This study provides an assessment of the two systems, System 1 and System 2, in forty-five clinical psychologists with different levels of experience (novices, intermediates and experts) with the purpose of exploring their level of activation and evolution throughout such stages of expertise. According to the results, clinical psychologists mainly activate System 2, M = 70.91, SD = 6.71, than System 1, M = 60.49, SD = 3.78; when performing their clinical duties. However, no significant changes have been observed regarding the preferential use of thinking Systems 1 or 2 throughout the experience, both systems are used in a similar way in the different levels of expertise analyzed, with an increase of System 2 at the intermediate level of expertise. The results are analyzed in terms of intermediate effect and discussed focusing on the unremitting need for System 2 in psychologist work given the idiosyncratic characteristics of each case requiring treatment in the area of psychology and on the relationship of the two systems in clinical reasoning
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Thinking , Transfer, Psychology/classification , Mental Processes , Psychology, Clinical/organization & administration , Psychotherapeutic Processes , Professional-Patient Relations , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Models, PsychologicalABSTRACT
Tradicionalmente se ha considerado que el pensamiento crítico requiere de un conjunto de habilidades cognitivas y disposiciones. El presente trabajo apoya la opinión de algunos teóricos que han propuesto que éstos podrían no ser los únicos ingredientes necesarios para mejorar el pensamiento crítico. Más específicamente, nuevos factores podrían ser necesarios para llegar a pensar críticamente, tales como: lograr una comprensión epistemológica del pensamiento crítico, haber alcanzado un determinado nivel de desarrollo epistemológico, o las creencias que se mantienen sobre el pensamiento. Estos nuevos componentes son analizados conceptual e instruccionalmente, así como la conveniencia de hacer un tratamiento más profundo de las disposiciones (AU)
Traditionally, it has been held that critical thinking requires a set of cognitive skills and dispositions. The present work supports the opinion of some theorists who have proposed that these might not be the only two ingredients necessary for improving critical thinking. More specifically, new factors could be necessary if critical thinking is to be achieved, such as gaining an epistemological understanding of critical thinking; reaching a given level of epistemological development, or the beliefs that are held about thinking. These new components are analysed conceptually and instructionally. Special attention is also devoted to dispositions (AU)
