Is bias in the eye of the beholder? A vignette study to assess recognition of cognitive biases in clinical case workups

“…There are well over hundred types of cognitive factors described [29], with many of them similar to each other or even leading to one another, for example search-satisficing and premature closure [21]. Nevertheless similar to the findings from this study, three error types consistently emerge from other empirical research and analyses of systematic reviews: availability, confirmation and hindsight bias [30]. Given hindsight bias affects any retrospective analyses, addressing the effect of availability and confirmation bias may be more appropriate for educators.…”

“…15 Other limitations due to bias are likely to be present due to the retrospective nature of the survey. 16 Our response rate (53.4%) is higher than others previously reported for an online survey. This reflects the high interest and motivation of surgeons attending the Spine Endoscopy symposium during the AMCICO 2022 congress.…”

“…Our ability to code several well-described CDRs (i.e., cognitive biases) based on the verbalized reasoning processes of our participants additionally suggests the concept of CDRs can be extended to the reasoning that occurs in MCQ construct. Furthermore, and contrary to prior work [ 7 ], this study provides a proof-of-concept that coders can agree upon the presence or absence of CDRs through a constant-comparative approach. Importantly, we were also able to build on the existing CDR framework that is predominantly composed of specific cognitive biases by noting additional phenomena, defined in the Flaws in Conceptual Understanding and “Other” Vulnerabilities categories , that seemed to be entangled with traditional CDRs (i.e., cognitive biases and heuristics).…”