Doctors' self-ratings of understanding overestimate their actual ability to define and use accuracy measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One study found 13/50 GPs self-reported understanding of sensitivity, specificity and PPV definitions, but when interviewed only one could define any measures of accuracy. → Whiting Penny F 2015

Evidence¶

Whiting Penny F 2015¶

Whiting Penny F, Davenport Clare, Jameson Catherine, Burke Margaret, Sterne Jonathan A C, Hyde Chris, Ben-Shlomo Yoav. (2015). How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review. BMJ Open. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521525/

q2 · i? · review · r3

Narrative synthesis reporting a GP validation study comparing self-rated understanding with interviewed ability to define accuracy measures. The review reports 13/50 GPs self-reported understanding of definitions, but only one could define any measures when interviewed.

"found that 13/50 general practitioners (GPs) self-reported understanding of the definitions of sensitivity, specificity and PPV.45 However, when interviewed only one could define any measures of accuracy, suggesting that GPs self-rating of understanding overestimates their ability."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Health professionals are less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity — related
• Only a minority of health professionals can define likelihood ratios, predictive values and specificity when asked to verbalise definitions — related
• Students tend to overestimate their clinical judgment ability relative to evaluator-assessed scores — related