• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

How Robust is the Influence of Causal Explanation on Clinical Judgments? Assessments in Structured Clinical Interviews.

作者信息

Jenkins Mason R, Kim Nancy S

机构信息

a Northeastern University.

出版信息

J Psychol. 2018 Feb 17;152(2):96-109. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2017.1407741. Epub 2018 Jan 11.

DOI:10.1080/00223980.2017.1407741
PMID:29324086
Abstract

When causal life-event explanations for disorder symptoms are available, clinicians tend to explain away those symptoms (Ahn, Novick, & Kim, 2003 ; Meehl, 1973 ), eschewing formal diagnostic guidelines such as the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ). We asked whether this effect is attenuated in the context of a structured diagnostic clinical interview procedure, which deliberately directs evaluators' attention to symptoms alone, or whether it is robust enough to continue to emerge. Across two experiments, lay evaluators given causal life-event explanations for disordered behaviors gave them lower judgments of abnormality and need for treatment compared to evaluators not given such explanations, regardless of whether they used a structured clinical interview. Thus, causal life-event explanations may have significant impact on clinical evaluations regardless of the mode of assessment. Implications for the clinical utility of structured interviews and the role of life-event context in diagnosis and classification are discussed.

摘要

相似文献

1
How Robust is the Influence of Causal Explanation on Clinical Judgments? Assessments in Structured Clinical Interviews.
J Psychol. 2018 Feb 17;152(2):96-109. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2017.1407741. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
2
Proportionate responses to life events influence clinicians' judgments of psychological abnormality.对生活事件的恰当反应影响临床医生对心理异常的判断。
Psychol Assess. 2012 Sep;24(3):581-91. doi: 10.1037/a0026416. Epub 2011 Dec 5.
3
'Understanding it makes it normal': is it a reasoning fallacy or not?“理解它,它就变得正常了”:这是一种推理谬误吗?
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Jun;19(3):524-7. doi: 10.1111/jep.12051.
4
SPIFA-A presentation of the Structured Psychiatric Interview for General Practice.SPIFA——全科医学结构化精神科访谈介绍
Nord J Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;63(6):443-53. doi: 10.3109/08039480902874769.
5
Posttraumatic embitterment disorder in comparison to other mental disorders.创伤后痛苦障碍与其他精神障碍的比较。
Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(1):50-6. doi: 10.1159/000110060. Epub 2007 Dec 14.
6
The influence of causal connections between symptoms on the diagnosis of mental disorders: evidence from online and offline measures.症状间因果联系对精神障碍诊断的影响:来自线上和线下测量的证据
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2014 Sep;20(3):175-90. doi: 10.1037/xap0000025. Epub 2014 Jul 28.
7
The influence of framing on clinicians' judgments of the biological basis of behaviors.框架对临床医生关于行为生物学基础判断的影响。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2016 Mar;22(1):39-47. doi: 10.1037/xap0000070. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
8
Thin-slice judgments in the clinical context.临床情境中的薄片判断。
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:131-53. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-090413-123522. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
9
Psychiatric comorbidity in women and men with eating disorders results from a large clinical database.精神障碍共病在患有进食障碍的女性和男性中源于大型临床数据库。
Psychiatry Res. 2015 Dec 15;230(2):294-9. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.09.008. Epub 2015 Sep 15.
10
Systematic distortions in clinicians' memories for client cases: Increasing causal coherence.临床医生对患者病例记忆中的系统性偏差:增强因果连贯性。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019 Feb;45(2):196-212. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000589. Epub 2018 Jul 9.