ArticleBMC medical education2026
Understanding cognitive errors in clinical decision-making: a Q methodology approach.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors are a significant cause of patient harm and legal issues in medicine, with the majority being cognitive in nature. This study aimed to explore the key elements that define these cognitive error styles among pediatric medical trainees (including interns, residents, and fellows). We specifically focused on characteristics of the decision maker that have not been adequately described previously in the literature but are highly relevant to clinical decision making (CDM).
methodsUsing Q-methodology, a research approach that combines qualitative and quantitative techniques to study human subjectivity, we examined the personal profiles of trainees regarding cognitive errors. Through a systematic analysis of 58 statements sorted by 48 participants from a pediatric referral hospital in Isfahan, Iran, we identified eight distinct patterns of cognitive error. These eight factors accounted for 66%of the variance in perspectives.
resultsEight distinct cognitive error profiles were tentatively identified among the participants. The profiles were labeled as "Pressure & Authority-Driven Reasoner" (19%), "Self-Oriented Reasoner" (13%), "Prototype-Driven Matcher" (10%), "Fear- and Pressure-Anchored Ignoring" (7%), "Availability- and Experience-Based Reasoner" (6%), "Premature Closure Satisficing Reasoner" (5%), "Diagnostic Momentum with Selective Cue Rejection" (4%), and "Anchoring-Driven Diagnostic Rigidity" (4%). Preliminary observations suggest the "Availability and Authority-Deference" profile may be more associated with younger participants, while some experienced students were associated with the "Anchored and Stubborn" profile.
conclusionsThese findings tentatively indicate that diagnostic errors arise from diverse, interacting cognitive styles and personality characteristics rather than uniform deficits in knowledge. Identifying distinct diagnostic reasoning profiles highlights the need for developmentally informed educational strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.