Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-16T22:03:44.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The link between post-qualification experience and self-confidence ratings in two problem-solving domains: a study of radiation therapists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2007

Helena Ferris ,
Kenneth McKenzie ,
Kevin Thomas  and
Agnella Craig
Helena Ferris
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine,Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Kenneth McKenzie*
Affiliation:
UCD Geary Institute, University CollegeDublin, Ireland
Kevin Thomas
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin,Ireland
Agnella Craig
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine,Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
*
Correspondence to: Kenneth Mckenzie, UCD Geary Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. E-mail: kenneth.mckenzie@ucd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recognising one’s abilities and limits in clinical tasks is a valuable part of professionalism. This study investigated the self-ratings of problem-solving confidence of radiation therapists (RTs) in two domains: clinical scenarios and critical thinking items (CTIs). We divided the 60 participants into three groups based on post-qualification experience (PQE), and found that greater PQE was linked with higher self-rated confidence for clinical scenarios, but not for CTIs.

Keywords

problem-solvingmetacognitionyears of experience

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 225 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Schwartz, BL, Perfect, TJ.Applied Metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Dunning, D, Heath, C, Suls, JM.Flawed self-assessment: implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychology in the Public Interest 2004; 5:69–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichtenstein, S, Fischhoff, B, Phillips, LD.Calibration of probabilities: state of the art to 1980. In: KahnemanD, D,Slovic, P, Tversky, A. (Eds). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 306–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Weiss, PM, Koller, CA, Hess, LW, Wasser, T.How do medical student self-assessments compare to their final clerkship grades? Med Teach 2005; 27:445–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marteau, TM, Johnston, M, Wynne, G, Evans, TR.Cognitive factors in the explanation of the mismatch between confidence and competence in performing basic life support. Psychol Health 1989; 3:173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oskamp, S.Overconfidence in case-study judgments. J Clin Psychol 1965; 29:261–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Trafimow, D, Sniezek, JA.Perceived expertise and its effect on confidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1994; 45:290-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, PE.Correspondence and coherence: Indicators of good judgment in world politics. In: Hardman, D, Macchi, L. (Eds). Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision-Making, 233–250. Chichester: Wiley, 2003.Google Scholar
Wallstein, TS.Physician and medical student bias in evaluating diagnostic information.Med Decis Making 1981; 2:145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, GB, Sonnenberg, FA. (Eds) Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Rybovic, M, Halkett, GKB, Williams, MT.Do confidence, formal training or years of experience influence the accuracy of electronic portal image review by radiation therapists? J Radiother Pract 2004; 4:78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, S.Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.Google Scholar
Butterworth, J, Thwaites, G.Preparing for the BMAT: The Official Guide to the Biomedical Admissions Test. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 2005.Google Scholar