Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 6 - Intercultural Simulations

  • from Part I - Theoretical Foundations of Intercultural Training
  • Edited by Dan Landis, University of Hawaii, Hilo, Dharm P. S. Bhawuk, University of Hawaii, Manoa
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training
    Published online:
    18 September 2020
    Print publication:
    27 August 2020, pp 258-280

  • Summary

    This chapter briefly surveys the field of intercultural sensitivity training programs and focuses on intercultural simulations as a method to replicate real intercultural interactions and allow participants to experience important aspects of intercultural interactions and to consider their experience in the light of the cultural and cross-cultural context of the interactions. These replications reveal the underlying dynamics and sources of perceptual and interpretative bias that may confound intercultural interaction, such as the fundamental attribution error, ethnocentric, and homogeneity biases that may produce confusion, misattribution, and even conflict. The chapter identifies numerous typologies and situates simulations in an experiential category. The chapter describes two experiential methods in some detail and provides suggestions for extracting insights made available to participants by elevating the saliency of culture to the interpretation of the interactions. Strengths and potential limitations are identified.

  • Ineffectiveness of cognitive forcing strategies to reduce biases in diagnostic reasoning: acontrolled trial

  • Jonathan Sherbino, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Elizabeth Howey, Geoffrey Norman
  • Journal:
    Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 16 / Issue 1 / January 2014
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 March 2015, pp. 34-40
    Print publication:
    January 2014
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Objectives:

    Cognitive forcing strategies (CFS)may reduce error arising from cognitive biases. This is the first experimental test to determine the effect of CFS training in medical students.

    Methods:

    Students were allocated to CFS training or control during a 4-week emergency medicine rotation (n = 191). At the end of the rotation examination, students were tested using computer-based cases. Application of CFS could enable reduction of diagnostic error, as evidenced by identifying multiple correct diagnoses for the two cases prone to search satisficing bias (SSB) and uncommon diagnoses for the two cases prone to availability bias (AB). Two “false positive” cases were included to test for possible “oversearching.”

    Results:

    There were 145 students in the intervention and 46 in the control group. For the SSB cases, 52% of students with CFS training and 48% in the control group initiated a search for the second diagnosis (χ2 = 0.13, df = 1, p = 0.91). More than half (54%) correctly identified the second diagnosis in the CFS group, and 48% identified it in the control group. The difference was not significant (χ2 = 2.25, df = 1, p = 0.13). For the second diagnosis in the false positive cases, 64% of the CFS group and 77% of the control group incorrectly identified it. There were no significant differences between groups (χ2 = 2.38, df = 1, p = 0.12). In the AB cases, only 45% in each group identified the uncommon correct diagnosis (χ2 = 0.001, df = 1, p = 0.98).

    Conclusions:

    The educational interventions suggested by experts in clinical reasoning and employed in our study to teach CFS failed to show any reduction in diagnostic error by novices.