Raab M, et al. The past, present and future of research on judgment and decision making in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;42:25–32.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bar-Eli M, Plessner H, Raab M. Judgement, decision-making and success in sport. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell; 2011. p. viii, 222.

Book  Google Scholar 

Ardern CL, et al. 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(14):853–64.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yung KK, et al. A framework for clinicians to improve the decision-making process in return to sport. Sports Med Open. 2022;8(1):52.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Eirale C, et al. Low injury rate strongly correlates with team success in Qatari professional football. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(12):807.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hägglund M, et al. Injuries affect team performance negatively in professional football: an 11-year follow-up of the UEFA Champions League injury study. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(12):738–42.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Stares JJ, et al. Subsequent injury risk is elevated above baseline after return to play: a 5-year prospective study in elite Australian football. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(9):2225–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Stares J, et al. How much is enough in rehabilitation? High running workloads following lower limb muscle injury delay return to play but protect against subsequent injury. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(10):1019–24.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hecksteden A, et al. Why humble farmers may in fact grow bigger potatoes: a call for street-smart decision-making in sport. Sports Med Open. 2023;9(1):94.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mayer J, Burgess S, Thiel A. Return-to-play decision making in team sports athletes. A quasi-naturalistic scenario study. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1020–1020.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Shrier I. Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) framework for return-to-play decision-making. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(20):1311–5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hutzler Y, Bar-Eli M. How to cope with bias while adapting for inclusion in physical education and sports: a judgment and decision-making perspective. Quest. 2013;65(1):57–71.

Article  Google Scholar 

Mousavi S, Gigerenzer G. Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. J Bus Res. 2014;67(8):1671–8.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A. Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. In: Tversky A, Bell DE, Raiffa H, editors. Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 9–30.

Chapter  Google Scholar 

Simon HA. Models of man: social and rational; mathematical essays on rational human behavior in society setting. New York: Wiley; 1957.

Google Scholar 

Simon HA. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ. 1955;69(1):99–118.

Article  Google Scholar 

Baron J. The point of normative models in judgment and decision making. Front Psychol. 2012;3:577.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(4):539–57.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Klein GA, et al editors. Decision making in action: Models and methods. Westport: Ablex Publishing; 1993. p. xi, 480.

Google Scholar 

Gigerenzer G. The adaptive toolbox. In: Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2001. p. 37–50.

Google Scholar 

Evans JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59(1):255–78.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013;8(3):223–41.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pelaccia T, et al. An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: the dual-process theory. Med Educ Online. 2011;16(1):5890.

Article  Google Scholar 

Lambe KA, et al. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(10):808–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(4):650–69.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Koehler DJ, Harvey N, editors. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2004. p. xvi, 664.

Google Scholar 

Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011. p. 499–499.

Google Scholar 

Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.

Korteling JE, Brouwer A-M, Toet A. A neural network framework for cognitive bias. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1561.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hunink M, et al. Psychology of judgment and choice. In: Wittenberg E, et al., editors. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 392–413.

Chapter  Google Scholar 

Croskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(11):1184–204.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Phang SH, et al. Internal medicine residents use heuristics to estimate disease probability. Can Med Educ J. 2015;6(2):e71–7.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Croskerry P. The cognitive imperative: thinking about how we think. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(11):1223–31.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol. 1973;5(2):207–32.

Article  Google Scholar 

Kovacs G, Croskerry P. Clinical decision making: an emergency medicine perspective. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(9):947–52.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Saposnik G, et al. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mamede S, et al. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198–203.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Richie M, Josephson SA. Quantifying heuristic bias: anchoring, availability, and representativeness. Teach Learn Med. 2018;30(1):67–75.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–80.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62(1):451–82.