Expertise in problem identification: a descriptive analysis of the cue selection and hypothesis generation of reading diagnosticians

Epitomizing the cognitive process of problem identification is diagnosis. Contrary to many areas of professional expertise (e.g., medicine, architecture), studies of expertise in reading diagnosis suggest that diagnosticians identify problems idiosyncratically, with little Intra- or inter-diagnostician consistency in cue selection and hypothesis generation. Further, their prescriptions appear to be unrelated to their diagnoses. A close examination of this research indicates use of a treatment which restricted the cues which naturally occur in the typical diagnostic process. ln addition, the data analysis focused only on the product (i.e., the diagnosis and prescription), neglecting study of the actual process.

The purpose of this study was to trace the diagnostic process, examining the cue utilization and hypothesis generation strategies, diagnoses, and prescriptions within and across five expert reading diagnosticians. Each diagnostician completed tive different experimental sessions with live different clients. Each session consisted of a preparation, Interaction, written diagnosis, and summary stage. The sessions were varied by mode of Interaction with the client (live, videotaped, and boxed tile with audiotape), time allocated to each stage, and method of verbal report (on-line think alouds or stimulated recalls). The major data sources were the verbal reports, the diagnosticians’ notes, and the written diagnosis. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the single, multiple, and missing cues, inferences, and hypotheses was conducted. Diagnoses and prescriptions were compared to the aforementioned cues and hypotheses to determine Intra- and inter-diagnostician consistency.

The three general sources of cues and hypotheses emanated from the client, the task environment, and background experiences, Cue selection strategies, selected cues, and related hypotheses were Iargely consistent within diagnosticians, with variations attributable to differences in treatment and/or individual client. lnterdiagnostician consistency was lower and related to training experiences, present instructional assignments, and conceptions of assessment. Across all diagnosticians and sessions, the availability of critical cues became the criteria for reaching a diagnosis and prescription. Generally, the diagnosticians were consistent across client, with variations again influenced by the availability of cues during the process. In effect, then, the activities and information selected during the diagnostic process varied across diagnostician, but the final products (the diagnosis and prescription) were Iargely similar.