Possible increased prevalence in the field regarding "Base Rate Neglect"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BuckeyeLove

Forensic Psychologist
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
820
Reaction score
1,369
Anyone notice an increase in this happening in the field? More specifically, I’ve been struck by many of the evals that I’ve seen come into my hospital that fail to even take base rates into consideration when opining on issues related to violence risk, a very low base rate phenomenon to begin with. I was just wondering if any of you have seen this happening as of late in your respective clinical settings, and if so, what might be some potential reasons, outside of solely relying on representativeness heuristics, which to me seems to be what is happening.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think this is why it is important for all clinicians to have a solid research background. The group I'm in does a good job imo, of taking into account base rates (specifically in the populations we serve) when considering diagnostic considerations. Granted, we all engage in research, so maybe it's just a more salient concept. But even in something somewhat straightforward as a dementia eval, thinking patterns of performance indicative of alzheimer's in a 55 year old is much different than looking at patterns of performance in an 80 year old. Actually taking the time to rule out, in a competent way, the zebras to get to the horse is always a good idea.

To answer your question though, I have seen some PP reports that have been outlandish. People love to chase after the rarities instead of just being practical and considering the boring reality of most cases.
 
I bet over half the clinicians out there couldn't define a base rate without Wikipedia so...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Some of you are utterly obnoxious, hiding in your anonymity within this message board. Every single thread turns into the same tired crap. (not talking about the OP here)
 
As Wisneuro, I've seen a lot of this from PP folks, most of them trying to do neuropsych without the fellowship. Most of these reports are characterized by 1)premature closure on a diagnosis, and 2)not enough information to r/o or at least consider the influence of competing factors. I've seen a few zebras in my fellowship, but this is a a hospital where we expect see a fair number of them per year.
 
As Wisneuro, I've seen a lot of this from PP folks, most of them trying to do neuropsych without the fellowship. Most of these reports are characterized by 1)premature closure on a diagnosis, and 2)not enough information to r/o or at least consider the influence of competing factors. I've seen a few zebras in my fellowship, but this is a a hospital where we expect see a fair number of them per year.

I reviewed a report this week that was nothing more than nonsensical ramblings attempting to justify a patients AD/HD diagnosis from test results, despite no developmental and behavioral history of anything of the sort. Although assessment is certainly not the sole domain of neuropsychologists, in my experience, most generally trained clinical psychologists are just not any good at it.
 
I'm really not that anonymous. At least within the small-ish neuropsych community. And, me on this board is me in real life. I have no problem verbally sparring with other professionals in my field, and have done so publicly many times. If you want to know who I am, just ask.
 
Some of you are utterly obnoxious, hiding in your anonymity within this message board. Every single thread turns into the same tired crap. (not talking about the OP here)

If you are referring to the bashing of professional schools, I go to "one of those" professional schools; I am under no illusion of their reputation. I won't elaborate more now, but some things need to be pointed out in hopes someone notices and makes a change, and sometimes, because its funny (in a sad way).
 
Top