{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050566037735849056, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022641509433962263, 'mean_word_length': 5.254716981132075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Are Clinicians Better Than Lay Judges at Recalling Case Details? An Evaluation of Expert Memory.

OBJECTIVE
This study examined the role of expertise in clinicians' memory for case details. Clinicians' diagnostic formulations may afford mechanisms for retaining and retrieving information.


METHOD
Experts (N = 41; 47.6% males, 23.8% females; 28.6% did not report gender; age: mean [M] = 54.69) were members of the American Board of Professional Psychologists. Lay judges (N = 156; 25.4% males, 74.1% females; age: M = 18.85) were undergraduates enrolled in general psychology. Three vignettes were presented to each group, creating a 2 (group: expert, lay judge) x 3 (vignettes: simple, complex-coherent, complex-incoherent) mixed factorial design. Recall accuracy for vignette details was the dependent variable.


RESULTS
Data analyses used multivariate analyses of variance to detect group differences among multiple continuous variables. Experts recalled more information than lay judges, overall. However, experts also exhibited more false memories for the complex-incoherent case because of their schema-based knowledge.


CONCLUSIONS
This study supported clinical expertise as beneficial. Nonetheless, negative influences from experts' schema-based knowledge, as exhibited, could adversely affect clinical practices.