Lockhart Joseph J, Satya-Murti Saty
Forensic Services Division, California Department of State Hospitals, 1305 North "H" Street, #117, Lompoc, CA.
Health Policy Consultant, 2534 Knightbridge Drive, Santa Maria, CA, 93455.
J Forensic Sci. 2017 Nov;62(6):1534-1541. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13453. Epub 2017 Feb 23.
Cognitive effort is an essential part of both forensic and clinical decision-making. Errors occur in both fields because the cognitive process is complex and prone to bias. We performed a selective review of full-text English language literature on cognitive bias leading to diagnostic and forensic errors. Earlier work (1970-2000) concentrated on classifying and raising bias awareness. Recently (2000-2016), the emphasis has shifted toward strategies for "debiasing." While the forensic sciences have focused on the control of misleading contextual cues, clinical debiasing efforts have relied on checklists and hypothetical scenarios. No single generally applicable and effective bias reduction strategy has emerged so far. Generalized attempts at bias elimination have not been particularly successful. It is time to shift focus to the study of errors within specific domains, and how to best communicate uncertainty in order to improve decision making on the part of both the expert and the trier-of-fact.
认知努力是法医决策和临床决策的重要组成部分。这两个领域都会出现错误,因为认知过程复杂且容易产生偏差。我们对导致诊断错误和法医错误的认知偏差的英文全文文献进行了选择性综述。早期研究(1970 - 2000年)集中于对偏差进行分类并提高偏差意识。最近(2000 - 2016年),重点已转向“去偏差”策略。虽然法医学专注于控制误导性的情境线索,但临床去偏差努力则依赖于清单和假设情景。到目前为止,尚未出现单一的普遍适用且有效的偏差减少策略。消除偏差的一般性尝试并不特别成功。现在是时候将重点转向特定领域内错误的研究,以及如何最好地传达不确定性,以改善专家和事实认定者的决策。