PaperUnsworth5 Omodei10 Omodei11 Solodilova-Whiteley and Johnson12 Pelaccia 
et al7
Publication
year
20052005200520062014
Participants (n)13912415
Participant
type
Occupational
therapists
Fire station
officers
Fire station officersMilitary pilotsEmergency physicians
GenderAll femaleAll maleAll maleAll male11 male, 4 female
Mean ageNot stated.Not stated.Not stated.Not stated.42
DesignQualitative.Mixed methods.Mixed methods.Qualitative.Qualitative.
AimConceptualise the clinical reasoning of occupational therapists.Conceptualise the decision making of firefighters.Compare the cognitions of good vs poor decision makers.Conceptualise information use by pilots.Conceptualise the clinical reasoning of emergency physicians.
ContextClient encounter during physical rehabilitation.Simulated emergency fire incident.Simulated emergency fire incident.Simulated flight.Encounter with patient with life-threatening condition.
Recollections relate toClinical reasoning.Situation assessment, intention formation, self-monitoring and regulation.Situation assessment, intention formation, self-monitoring and regulation.Gathering and assimilation of information, anticipating future states.Clinical diagnosis.
ComparatorNo.No.No.No.No.
Primary outcomeNA.NA.NA.NA.NA.
Methods data collection/analysisNA.NA.NA.NA.NA.
Secondary outcome—applicationGenerate additional insight into clinical reasoning of occupational therapists.Generate additional insight into how cognitive activity is used in firefighters.Evaluate differences in cognitive content between poor and good decision makers.Generate a model demonstrating information gathering and assimilation in a cockpit.Define the cognitive strategies of emergency physicians in making a clinical diagnosis.
Method of data collection and/or analysisTranscription and coding of CRD commentary.Transcription and coding of CRD commentary with quantitative count of recollection types. Pattern compared with Klein’s recognition-primed decision model.Transcription and coding CRD commentary. Quantitative count of type of recollections and qualitative thematic analysis. 10-point rating scale to rate and stratify performance.Transcription and coding of CRD commentary in order to generate a model of information flow.Transcription and coding of CRD commentary with thematic analysis.
Coding approach (framework used)A priori (Mattingly and Fleming, Schell and Cervero clinical reasoning frameworks).A priori (Cognitive Process Tracing Categorisation Scheme (CPTCS)).A priori (CPTCS).Emergent.Emergent.
Statistical method (quantitative only)NA.NA.χ2 analysis comparing differences between groups.NA.NA.
Potential utilityTraining students/beginners to think like experts.Training.Training. Trainers can target the cognitive gap that separates novices and experts.Implications for human/systems interface design.Training: Trainers can target the cognitive gap that separates novices and experts.
  • CRD, cued-recall-debrief; NA, not applicable.