Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Tay, Shu Wen
dc.contributor.author Ryan, Paul
dc.contributor.author Ryan, C. Anthony
dc.date.accessioned 2017-01-03T15:38:18Z
dc.date.available 2017-01-03T15:38:18Z
dc.date.issued 2016-10-18
dc.identifier.citation Tay, S. W., Ryan, P. M. and Ryan, C. A. (2016) 'Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students', 2016, 7(2), e97-e103. en
dc.identifier.volume 7 en
dc.identifier.issued 2 en
dc.identifier.startpage e97 en
dc.identifier.endpage e103 en
dc.identifier.issn 1923-1202
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10468/3413
dc.description.abstract Background: Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of Systems 1 and 2 thinking among medical students in pre-clinical and clinical programs. Methods: The CRT is a three-question test designed to measure the ability of respondents to activate metacognitive processes and switch to System 2 (analytic) thinking where System 1 (intuitive) thinking would lead them astray. Each CRT question has a correct analytical (System 2) answer and an incorrect intuitive (System 1) answer. A group of medical students in Years 2 & 3 (pre-clinical) and Years 4 (in clinical practice) of a 5-year medical degree were studied. Results: Ten percent (13/128) of students had the intuitive answers to the three questions (suggesting they generally relied on System 1 thinking) while almost half (44%) answered all three correctly (indicating full analytical, System 2 thinking). Only 3-13% had incorrect answers (i.e. that were neither the analytical nor the intuitive responses). Non-native English speaking students (n = 11) had a lower mean number of correct answers compared to native English speakers (n = 117: 1.0 s 2.12 respectfully: p < 0.01). As students progressed through questions 1 to 3, the percentage of correct System 2 answers increased and the percentage of intuitive answers decreased in both the pre-clinical and clinical students. Conclusions: Up to half of the medical students demonstrated full or partial reliance on System 1 (intuitive) thinking in response to these analytical questions. While their CRT performance has no claims to make as to their future expertise as clinicians, the test may be used in helping students to understand the importance of awareness and regulation of their thinking processes in clinical practice. en
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher University of Saskatchewan en
dc.rights © 2016 Tay, Ryan, Ryan; licensee Synergies Partners. This is an Open Journal Systems article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. en
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
dc.subject Cognitive reflection test en
dc.subject Systems 1 and 2 thinking en
dc.subject Intuition en
dc.subject Metacognition en
dc.subject Medical students en
dc.title Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students en
dc.type Article (peer-reviewed) en
dc.internal.authorcontactother Paediatrics & Child Health, Department of Neonatology, Cork University Maternity Hospital Wilton, Cork. T: +353-21-4920525 E: tony.ryan@ucc.ie en
dc.internal.availability Full text available en
dc.description.version Published Version en
dc.description.status Peer reviewed en
dc.identifier.journaltitle Canadian Medical Education Journal en
dc.internal.copyrightchecked !!CORA!! en
dc.internal.IRISemailaddress tony.ryan@ucc.ie en


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2016 Tay, Ryan, Ryan; licensee Synergies Partners. This is an Open Journal Systems article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2016 Tay, Ryan, Ryan; licensee Synergies Partners. This is an Open Journal Systems article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This website uses cookies. By using this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with the UCC Privacy and Cookies Statement. For more information about cookies and how you can disable them, visit our Privacy and Cookies statement