Diagnosis is paramount in automotive repair, serving as the cornerstone for effective communication and precise documentation regarding a vehicle’s condition. A well-defined diagnosis streamlines the repair process, ensuring that technicians can “cross-talk” effectively and minimize variability in service quality. It refines treatment—or in our context, repair—options, leading to more efficient and successful outcomes.
Moving beyond basic troubleshooting, differential diagnosis in auto repair necessitates higher-order thinking. This advanced cognitive processing goes beyond simple memorization of fault codes or component locations. It demands a deeper understanding of vehicle systems, interdependencies, and the ability to analyze complex symptoms to pinpoint the root cause of a problem. This level of thinking is crucial after initial symptoms and preliminary checks have been conducted.
Diagnostic metrics in automotive, such as scan tool data, sensor readings, and component tests, can be categorized as internal or external. Internal metrics provide direct information about a specific test, while external metrics inform post-test decision-making, guiding subsequent steps in the diagnostic process. The most valuable diagnostic tests are those that effectively guide these downstream decisions, leading to accurate and efficient repairs.
However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the potential for overdiagnosis in auto repair. An excessive pursuit of pinpoint diagnoses can sometimes lead to overtreatment, resulting in unnecessary repairs and increased costs for vehicle owners. A balanced approach is essential, focusing on effective solutions rather than merely labeling every anomaly.
Within a single diagnostic label, such as “misfire,” lies a spectrum of potential phenotypes. Multiple vehicles might present with the same misfire code, yet exhibit markedly different underlying issues and require diverse repair strategies. Understanding these nuances is key to expert-level automotive diagnosis.
Keywords: Differential Diagnosis, Automotive Diagnosis, Diagnostic Metrics, Troubleshooting, Vehicle Repair, Scan Tools, Fault Finding
Abstract
Background
Differential diagnosis is a systematic approach employed to distinguish the correct automotive fault from a range of possible, competing issues. It’s not just about reading codes; it’s about critical thinking and deduction.
Methods
This masterclass aims to explore the higher-order thinking skills essential for effective differential diagnosis in automotive repair. We delve into the nuances of interpreting diagnostic data, avoiding common pitfalls, and utilizing advanced diagnostic strategies.
Conclusions
For automotive repair professionals, diagnosis is a pivotal step in the clinical decision-making process. It is characterized by the differentiation of competing possibilities to achieve a definitive understanding of the vehicle’s underlying problem. The diagnostic journey involves a thorough evaluation of vehicle history, meticulous physical inspection, and detailed analysis of scan tool data and diagnostic tests. This culminates in a descriptive label of the fault. While the proficiency in differential diagnosis varies among technicians, the core concept of diagnosis remains universally vital. In theory, a robust diagnosis enhances the effectiveness of repair strategies, improves clarity and communication with vehicle owners, provides a roadmap for repair procedures, and refines the prediction of repair outcomes. To realize these benefits, a technician must grasp the clinical utility of diagnostic tests and measurements and understand how to effectively apply these findings in a practical repair setting. This necessitates a deeper, higher-order understanding of the role of diagnosis in vehicle maintenance and repair.
The Where, When, and Why of Automotive Diagnosis
Background
The automotive diagnostic process is fundamentally about pinpointing the etiology of a vehicle malfunction or condition. This is achieved through a comprehensive evaluation of the vehicle’s history, a thorough physical inspection, and the careful review of scan tool data, sensor readings, and other diagnostic outputs. 1 Effective diagnoses are crucial for clear communication—with vehicle owners, among technicians, with parts suppliers, and within repair facilities. Drawing parallels from the evolution of medical diagnosis, automotive diagnostics has similarly progressed through stages of refinement. These include the establishment of automotive repair as a specialized profession, the invention of diagnostic tools to aid in pinpointing faults, the use of failure analysis to confirm diagnostic findings, the systematic study of vehicle systems for educational purposes, the increasing sophistication of physical and electronic examination techniques, and the standardization of diagnostic codes and protocols.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) have been instrumental in developing standardized diagnostic protocols, such as OBD-II and related standards. These systems aim to uniformly define fault codes, symptoms, and diagnostic procedures across different vehicle makes and models. These standardized classifications organize diagnostic information into structured groups of faults, enabling: streamlined storage, retrieval, and analysis of vehicle health data for evidence-based repair decisions; efficient sharing and comparison of diagnostic information between workshops, technicians, and even across geographical regions; and the ability to track vehicle performance and fault trends over time. Furthermore, these coding systems allow for a higher level of diagnostic precision and detail, improving the ability to document vehicle issues and compare repair outcomes at a broader, industry-wide level. At its core, a standardized automotive diagnostic system enhances communication among automotive professionals and should be considered a foundational competency for any automotive diagnostician.
Improved communication and a shared language for describing categories of automotive faults are invaluable in differential diagnosis. However, truly mastering the use of these diagnostic categories and recognizing the limitations of diagnostic labels requires higher-order thinking. As in medicine, higher-order thinking in automotive diagnostics is based on the idea that some forms of learning require greater cognitive processing and extend beyond rote memorization of codes, facts, and concepts. Higher-order cognitive skills in this field include conceptualization of complex systems, analytical interpretation of data, and critical evaluation of diagnostic strategies. It involves structured levels of reasoning—productive thinking and deduction—rather than simply reproductive or learned responses. 4 Fundamental skills associated with higher-order thinking include analogical and logical reasoning. 5 Analogical reasoning involves leveraging similarities between different vehicle systems or past experiences to understand current issues. Logical reasoning involves drawing upon existing knowledge to make inferences and solve diagnostic problems. Critical thinking is a vital component of higher-order diagnostic reasoning.
A foundational understanding of automotive diagnoses is a complex, iterative, and indispensable process. In this masterclass, we contend that higher-order thinking extends far beyond the memorization of test procedures, sensor specifications, and a laundry list of OBD-II codes. Specifically, we argue that for advanced differential diagnostic reasoning, an automotive technician must pay close attention to: (1) how diagnostic test metrics can be misleading; (2) how a diagnostic label might oversimplify complex issues; and (3) how employing diverse diagnostic classification methods can improve repair strategies.
Alt Text: Automotive technician connecting a diagnostic scan tool to a vehicle’s ECU interface for fault code analysis, highlighting the initial step in differential diagnosis.
How Diagnostic Test Metrics Can Be Misleading
Interpreting Test Metrics in Automotive Diagnostics
To accurately diagnose a vehicle issue—determining the presence or absence of a fault—technicians rely on a variety of diagnostic tests, from visual inspections to advanced scan tool functions. The core of any diagnostic study is the comparison of a test (or a combination of tests), referred to as the “index test,” against a known “reference standard.” This process yields diagnostic test metrics. 6, 7
Table 1 outlines common test metrics used in automotive differential diagnosis. In the context of automotive repair, analogous metrics to Sensitivity (SN) and Specificity (SP) are less formally calculated but conceptually understood. For instance, “sensitivity” might relate to how often a particular test correctly identifies a known fault in vehicles that demonstrably have that fault. “Specificity” would be how often a test correctly indicates no fault in vehicles that are known to be functioning correctly in that system. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) are similarly conceptual. PPV can be seen as the likelihood that a vehicle truly has a specific fault when a test indicates a “positive” result. NPV is the likelihood that a vehicle truly does not have a fault when a test shows a “negative” result. In automotive contexts, these are often intuitively assessed rather than rigorously calculated.
Table 1.
Common test metrics for differential diagnosis in automotive repair (adapted for automotive context).
| Metric | Abbreviation | Automotive Context Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (Conceptual) | SN | How often a test correctly identifies a known fault in vehicles with that fault. |
| Specificity (Conceptual) | SP | How often a test correctly indicates no fault in vehicles without that fault. |
| Positive Predictive Value (Conceptual) | PPV | Likelihood a vehicle truly has a fault when the test is “positive.” |
| Negative Predictive Value (Conceptual) | NPV | Likelihood a vehicle truly doesn’t have a fault when the test is “negative.” |
| Positive Likelihood Ratio (Conceptual) | LR+ | The odds of a vehicle having a fault if the test is positive compared to a vehicle without the fault. |
| Negative Likelihood Ratio (Conceptual) | LR− | The odds of a vehicle not having a fault if the test is negative compared to a vehicle with the fault. |
Likelihood ratios (LR), while less formally used in daily automotive practice, conceptually reflect the influence of a test on diagnostic decisions. A LR+ above 1.0 suggests the test result increases the likelihood of a fault being present, while a LR− below 1.0 suggests it decreases the likelihood. These values are implicitly linked to the pre-test probability—the technician’s initial suspicion based on vehicle history and symptoms—and can be used to refine the post-test probability of a particular diagnosis. In essence, these ratios help in “ruling in” or “ruling out” potential faults. While benchmark values aren’t strictly defined in automotive repair metrics, the principle remains that a significant LR+ or LR− substantially alters the diagnostic probability.
The current diagnostic approach often involves interpreting these metrics for a given test to identify the most probable diagnostic label for a vehicle. However, interpreting these metrics is fraught with potential missteps. As previously noted, SN, SP, PPV, and NPV are more conceptual in automotive contexts and are not used in isolation for decision-making. Relying solely on individual values can be misleading because they might not represent the full spectrum of vehicle conditions encountered in a repair shop. The concepts of “SPin” (ruling in with high specificity) and “SNout” (ruling out with high sensitivity), while conceptually useful, can be outdated and prone to errors in interpretation. 9 For example, a diagnostic test for a specific sensor might show high specificity—rarely triggering a false positive—but low sensitivity—frequently missing the fault when it is present. Relying only on high specificity to “rule in” a fault could lead to missed diagnoses if sensitivity is low. For SPin and SNout concepts to be effective, the complementary metrics must be at reasonable levels to minimize decision-making errors.
Likelihood ratios, even conceptually applied, can be useful in indicating the degree of change in diagnostic probability, but they, too, can mislead the diagnostic process. For example, the accuracy of a compression test for diagnosing cylinder issues is well-established. However, the prevalence of severe cylinder compression problems varies greatly. In a general repair shop, the pre-test probability (prevalence) of a major compression issue might be relatively low, as many vehicles present with other types of problems. In a performance tuning shop specializing in high-mileage or modified engines, the prevalence could be significantly higher. 11, 12 Even if a compression test exhibits a strong LR+, 13 the post-test probability when applied to these different shop contexts with varying prevalences could differ substantially, impacting the certainty and decisions about further diagnostics or repairs. Prevalence also influences the interpretation of “red flags”—critical symptoms indicating serious underlying issues. For instance, relying solely on a specific symptom to “rule out” a catastrophic engine failure might be unreliable if the symptom is infrequent even when severe failures are present (poor negative LR). 14, 15
Diagnostic Tool Quality and Vehicle Condition Severity Affect Outcomes
The interpretation of diagnostic metrics is also heavily dependent on the quality and reliability of the diagnostic tools used. For example, an inexpensive OBD-II scanner might provide generic fault codes, but lack the advanced functionality and accuracy of a professional-grade scan tool capable of detailed sensor data analysis and manufacturer-specific diagnostics. Technicians should critically evaluate the quality of their diagnostic tools, understand their limitations, and be aware of how tool quality can introduce biases in diagnostic accuracy. 18 Furthermore, the severity of the vehicle’s condition can influence test outcomes. Vehicles with advanced, severe issues might exhibit diagnostic test results that are more readily apparent and easier to detect (higher sensitivity, potentially lower specificity if less precise tools are used). Vehicles with intermittent or subtle problems might present with less clear-cut results (lower sensitivity, potentially higher specificity).
Impact on Automotive Diagnostic Decision-Making
Effective automotive diagnostic decision-making requires a blend of analytical approaches based on evidence (e.g., diagnostic test metrics, scan data) and intuitive approaches grounded in the technician’s experience. 19 Technicians continually face the challenge of avoiding pitfalls when interpreting diagnostic test results. All diagnostic methods, from visual inspections to advanced electronic tests, have strengths and weaknesses. Flaws in understanding test accuracy, misinterpreting probabilities, and relying on low-quality diagnostic data can derail the analytical process. [20](#bib0330] Intuitive processes can be undermined by cognitive biases such as confirmation bias (seeking data that confirms a pre-conceived diagnosis) or premature closure (stopping the diagnostic process too early when an initial diagnosis seems to fit). 20
Ultimately, the results of diagnostic tests guide technicians to make decisions about further testing and repair procedures. Therefore, strong clinical reasoning—automotive reasoning in this context—is paramount to connect test results to an appropriate repair plan within a complete service pathway. Higher-order thinking compels a technician to move beyond simply reading codes and consider the consequences of misdiagnosis and how diagnostic decisions impact subsequent repair steps, cost, and customer satisfaction.
Take-home message: Most automotive diagnostic metrics, even when conceptual, are internal metrics and should not be used in isolation to determine post-test diagnostic probability. Diagnostic metrics can be influenced by tool quality and vehicle condition severity. Even metrics conceptually used for post-test probability, like likelihood ratios, must be applied with a thorough understanding of how pre-test probability (prevalence) can affect outcomes.
Alt Text: Automotive technician analyzing sensor waveforms on an oscilloscope, illustrating the use of advanced diagnostic tools for deeper fault analysis beyond basic code reading.
How a Diagnostic Label May Oversimplify Automotive Care
The reliance on diagnostic codes and labels based on component or system names can lead to an overemphasis on specific parts, potentially oversimplifying complex vehicle issues and leading to repairs that don’t fully address the root cause. We argue that diagnosing and classifying vehicle problems solely based on this model can result in overly simplistic or even misleading diagnostic labels that may not translate into optimal repair outcomes.
Over-Reliance on Diagnostic Tests and Overdiagnosis in Automotive Repair
Many fields, including automotive repair, have increasingly depended on diagnostic tests and metrics to guide decision-making. 21 However, it is now recognized that this over-reliance on diagnostic labeling can drive the overuse of diagnostic tests and potentially lead to overdiagnosis in automotive contexts. Overdiagnosis occurs when a vehicle receives a diagnostic label for a condition that might never actually cause significant problems or require repair. 22 This can happen when diagnostic tests identify minor anomalies or deviations from ideal parameters that, in most cases, would not lead to noticeable symptoms or performance issues. 23 The core of overdiagnosis is thus closely linked to how diagnostic labels are defined and how test metrics are interpreted.
When a vehicle presents with performance issues, unusual noises, or warning lights, technicians often initiate a cascade of diagnostic steps—gathering vehicle history, performing visual inspections, conducting physical tests, and utilizing scan tools and specialized equipment—to pinpoint the source of the symptoms. 24 Automotive repair is susceptible to the overuse of diagnostic tests. A significant portion of diagnostic procedures, especially those involving advanced scan tool functions or component replacements based solely on fault codes, might be considered unnecessary in certain situations. [25](#bib0355] Automotive systems are particularly prone to “overdiagnosis” given the documented prevalence of minor, often asymptomatic, deviations detected by diagnostic tools. Examples of such labels could include “minor catalytic converter inefficiency,” “slight evap system leak,” 26 “intermittent sensor fault,” 27 “normal wear on brake pads,” 28 “minor play in suspension components,” 29 “normal fluid seepage around seals,” 30 or “early signs of tire wear.” 30
From a service workflow perspective, overuse of diagnostic tests and overdiagnosis can trigger a cascade of potentially unnecessary repair procedures, such as premature component replacements, overly aggressive fluid flushes, or the application of “band-aid” solutions instead of addressing root causes. 24, 31 Differentiating between highly specific component-level diagnoses might not always be crucial for selecting effective first-line repair options. We need to critically evaluate whether current diagnostic methods truly improve vehicle longevity and customer satisfaction.
Evidence Linking Diagnostic Tests to Vehicle Outcomes
The evidence directly linking specific diagnostic tests to improved vehicle longevity, reliability, and customer satisfaction is surprisingly limited in automotive repair. While diagnostic tools are essential for identifying faults, their routine overuse or misapplication might not consistently translate into better vehicle outcomes. Analogous to medical meta-analyses, a comprehensive review of studies examining the impact of routine diagnostic imaging on patient outcomes 32, automotive repair needs similar research to assess the value of routine diagnostic procedures on vehicle performance and longevity. One could argue that routinely replacing components based solely on generic fault codes, without thorough investigation, might not lead to improved vehicle reliability while increasing repair costs and potentially introducing new issues if not performed correctly. 27 Anecdotal evidence suggests that vehicles subjected to overly aggressive preventative maintenance based on diagnostic “findings” might not necessarily experience fewer breakdowns or longer lifespans. 24 Another observation is that focusing solely on addressing fault codes in isolation, without considering the vehicle as a holistic system, might not improve overall vehicle function in the long run. 33
These observations suggest that adding diagnostic tests that frequently yield minor, often asymptomatic findings to the automotive repair pathway may not consistently result in better vehicle outcomes. It can contribute to overdiagnosis and the overuse of subsequent repair procedures. Future research, and more importantly, practical shop experience and data analysis, should investigate if the implementation of current and emerging diagnostic methods (e.g., advanced sensor analysis, AI-powered diagnostics), classification systems (e.g., symptom-based fault trees, predictive maintenance algorithms), or vehicle health prediction models improve the complete repair workflow, leading to enhanced vehicle outcomes without exposing vehicle owners to the drawbacks of overdiagnosis and unnecessary repairs. In other words, knowing the precise component or system labeled as “faulty” might not change the downstream decision of selecting high-quality, effective repair options needed to improve vehicle outcomes.
Prognosis—Often Overlooked, Yet Equally Crucial in Automotive
Prognosis, in the automotive context, can be defined as predicting the future health and performance trajectory of a vehicle. It’s a method of classification designed to determine the likelihood of specific events occurring in the future, such as component failures, performance degradation, or the need for specific repairs. 36 Prognostic thinking in automotive repair asks whether a particular diagnostic or repair decision will positively influence the vehicle’s future condition and lifespan. It’s been argued that prognostic decision-making should be as central to automotive repair as diagnostic research, as “no repair” or “watchful waiting” (monitoring a condition without immediate intervention) is often as valid a choice as performing immediate repairs. Failure to incorporate prognostic thinking into automotive care can lead to detrimental effects and overtreatment (as discussed earlier).
Much automotive technical training focuses on the principles of fault diagnosis and repair procedures. Indeed, historical emphasis has been placed on informing technicians and vehicle owners about new understandings of vehicle systems, failure mechanisms, and how best to diagnose faults and prescribe effective repairs linked to those diagnoses. We argue that placing equal emphasis on prognosis in automotive repair could mitigate overdiagnosis and overtreatment of vehicles. For example, adopting a “watchful waiting” approach for benign conditions that often resolve on their own or are within acceptable operational tolerances could reduce the risk of causing harm through unnecessary interventions, avoid unwarranted repair costs, and prevent unnecessary anxiety for vehicle owners. By accurately predicting vehicle health trajectories, we could develop personalized maintenance schedules and proactive repair approaches more likely to improve long-term outcomes. We could differentiate between vehicles that simply require routine maintenance and those needing more intensive or specialized care, potentially reallocating resources to enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of automotive service.
Interestingly, similar to findings in medical trials, vehicle owners and even technicians sometimes prefer the use of advanced diagnostic technologies and are more satisfied with service that involves extensive testing, even when vehicle outcomes are not demonstrably improved. 27, 33 This situation poses a real challenge for automotive professionals. Conceptual models suggest that receiving a diagnostic label—even a minor one—can have financial consequences (unnecessary repair costs), create anxiety for vehicle owners, and increase the perceived burden of vehicle maintenance. 31 Vehicle owners are often unaware of the potential downsides associated with aggressive diagnostic labeling and repair recommendations. As the natural progression of some automotive issues might be self-limiting or inconsequential, we need to further explore how a “watchful waiting” approach can be optimally integrated into automotive service practices.
Take-home message: When excessive effort is put into achieving a precise diagnostic label, it can lead to overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment in automotive repair. Focusing on prognosis for conditions that might be self-correcting or benign could lead to better overall vehicle outcomes and customer satisfaction.
How Employing Different Diagnostic Classification Methods Could Enhance Automotive Management
We’ve shown that current diagnostic labels in automotive repair can sometimes negatively impact vehicle outcomes through overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To bridge the gap between diagnosis and positive outcomes, we must embrace the inherent complexity and variability within common diagnostic labels. “Phenotyping,” in an automotive context, offers a potentially superior method for understanding and addressing vehicle issues.
Traditionally, “phenotype” refers to the observable characteristics of an organism resulting from the interaction of its genotype and environment. 37 In automotive repair, we can adapt the concept of phenotyping to encompass the observable characteristics of a vehicle’s condition, arising from a combination of its design (“genotype,” in a loose analogy), usage history, environmental factors, and maintenance history. Automotive phenotyping could involve analyzing a vehicle’s physical, mechanical, electrical, and operational characteristics, along with its interaction with its operational environment, to identify unique, observable patterns. 37 Research in medicine has used phenotyping to predict patient outcomes; similarly, in automotive repair, phenotyping could be used to predict vehicle repair trajectories and optimize maintenance strategies.
While genetic phenotyping is not directly applicable to vehicles, we can utilize purely clinical (or in our context, vehicle-based) findings to create automotive phenotypes. Drawing parallels from the knee osteoarthritis research 39, [40](#bib0430], we can envision phenotyping vehicles with a general diagnostic label like “engine misfire.” Instead of just labeling it a “misfire,” we could phenotype misfires based on factors like: misfire frequency and pattern, engine load and RPM conditions during misfire, fuel trim data, sensor readings (MAF, O2, Crank/Cam position), spark plug condition, injector performance, compression readings, and vehicle usage history. These phenotypes might be categorized as “lean misfire,” “rich misfire,” “ignition-related misfire,” “compression-related misfire,” or “sensor-induced misfire,” all under the broader diagnostic label of “engine misfire.”
Similarly, drawing inspiration from pain susceptibility phenotypes [41](#bib0435], we could identify “vehicle susceptibility phenotypes.” For instance, considering vehicles experiencing brake squeal—a common complaint. Instead of a generic “brake squeal” diagnosis, we could phenotype based on: brake pad material, rotor surface condition, caliper functionality, driving conditions (city vs. highway), climate conditions (humidity, temperature), and brake system design. Phenotypes could be “pad material-related squeal,” “rotor surface-related squeal,” “caliper-related squeal,” or “environmentally induced squeal.”
Following the trajectory-based phenotyping example 42, we could analyze vehicle performance trajectories post-repair. For example, after performing a transmission service for shifting issues, we could track vehicle performance over time (transmission temperature, shift smoothness, fault code recurrence). Subgroups of vehicles might show persistent shifting issues, early recurrence of problems, or successful long-term resolution. These trajectories could be predicted by factors like vehicle age and mileage, transmission fluid condition at service, driving habits, and service procedures used.
Analogous to low back pain trajectories [43](#bib0445], we could identify vehicle performance trajectories over time after a general repair like an engine tune-up. Trajectories could include immediate performance recovery, delayed recovery, performance improvement without full recovery, fluctuating performance, and persistent poor performance. Factors like pre-tune-up vehicle condition, parts quality used, and technician skill could predict these trajectories.
Similar to subgrouping based on history and physical exam in back pain [44](#bib0450], we could subgroup vehicles with cooling system issues based on a detailed history and inspection. Using characteristics like coolant leak location, system pressure test results, thermostat function, water pump condition, radiator condition, and vehicle usage patterns, we could identify subgroups. While these subgroups might be more complex to define and apply, they could potentially lead to more targeted and effective repair approaches. Further research could investigate if these subgroups respond better to specific repair strategies.
Following the disability trajectory example in arm, neck, and shoulder pain [45](#bib0455], we could identify vehicle “reliability trajectories” over a 2-year period after a major repair. We could track metrics like frequency of unscheduled maintenance, vehicle downtime, and owner satisfaction. Prognostic variables from the initial vehicle inspection, such as overall vehicle condition score, number of pre-existing issues, or vehicle usage intensity, could predict which vehicles would follow a “continuous high reliability,” “improving reliability,” or “persistent low reliability” trajectory. In the patellofemoral pain example [46](#bib0460], we could subgroup vehicles with tire wear issues based on clinical measurements like alignment angles, suspension component wear, tire pressure maintenance habits, and driving style. Subgroups like “alignment-related wear,” “suspension-related wear,” and “driving style-related wear” could be identified, allowing for targeted interventions to improve tire life and vehicle handling.
These automotive examples suggest that multiple phenotypes can exist within a “single” diagnostic label. This implies that vehicles with the same general diagnosis might have different outcomes with the same repair procedure. We also propose that diagnostic test results can vary within a single diagnosis based on the vehicle’s phenotype.
Take-home message: These examples illustrate that automotive phenotyping, based on vehicle characteristics, performance data, and diagnostic findings, can help us better understand diverse vehicle profiles and different performance trajectories within a given diagnostic label. As technicians and researchers globally continue to build comprehensive vehicle databases and diagnostic knowledge bases, we will gain more insights to identify relevant automotive phenotypes.
Conclusion
Higher-order thinking, a decision-making process that transcends memorization, facts, and basic concepts, is essential for expert automotive diagnosticians. In this masterclass, we discussed how higher-order thinking can mitigate interpretation errors associated with standard diagnostic metrics, how it can reduce overdiagnosis, and how a single diagnostic label can encompass multiple automotive phenotypes. Looking ahead, we need to advance automotive diagnosis beyond simple metrics and explore linking phenotyping and prognostic evidence to refine targeted repair strategies and ultimately improve vehicle outcomes and customer satisfaction. We are still in the early stages of fully understanding the diverse profiles of vehicles with seemingly similar issues. Comprehensive vehicle data, databases, and data analysis tools, including artificial intelligence, will accelerate our understanding of the intricate relationship between diagnosis and vehicle outcomes.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to automotive repair or diagnostic tool manufacturers.
References
[1] Kessler, R., et al. “The diagnostic process.” JAMA. 2023; 330(5): 405-406. (Adapted for general diagnostic process relevance)
[2] Walker, H. K. “The history of medical diagnosis.” Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997; 157(16): 1817-1824. (Adapted for historical context of diagnosis)
[3] World Health Organization. “International Classification of Diseases (ICD).” 11th Revision. 2018. (Adapted for standardization of classifications)
[4] Facione, P. A. “Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts.” Hermosa Beach, CA: The California Academic Press, 2011. (Adapted for higher-order thinking definition)
[5] Richland, L. E., & Burch, L. A. “Analogical reasoning in educational contexts.” Handbook of research on learning and instruction. 2017; 291-315. (Adapted for analogical reasoning)
[6] Bossuyt, P. M., et al. “STARD 2015: reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies.” BMJ. 2015; 351: h5527. (Adapted for diagnostic accuracy studies)
[7] Deeks, J. J., et al. “Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.” Health Technology Assessment. 2003; 7(27): iii-x, 1-173. (Adapted for evaluating studies)
[8] McGee, S. “Simplifying likelihood ratios.” J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17(8): 646-649. (Adapted for likelihood ratios)
[9] Ebell, M. H. “Snout and spin and likelihood ratios.” Fam Pract Manag. 2009; 16(5): 14-20. (Adapted for SNout and SPin)
[10] Rhon, D. I., et al. “Clinical reasoning and diagnostic accuracy.” J Man Manip Ther. 2018; 26(1): 2-12. (Adapted for clinical reasoning and accuracy)
[11] Hegger, T. M., et al. “Accuracy of the Lachman test for diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25(1): 1-15. (Adapted for test accuracy example)
[12] Benjaminse, A., et al. “Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(5): 267-288. (Adapted for test accuracy example)
[13] Leeb, B. F., et al. “Clinical versus laboratory diagnosis: diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment in patients with inflammatory joint pain.” Ann Rheum Dis. 2000; 59(11): 843-849. (Adapted for clinical vs lab diagnosis)
[14] Downie, A., et al. “Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review.” BMJ. 2013; 347: f7095. (Adapted for red flags example)
[15] Verhagen, A. P., et al. “Red flags for low back pain in primary care: systematic review.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (10): CD008636. (Adapted for red flags example)
[16] Karachalios, T., et al. “Diagnostic value of the Thessaly test in assessing meniscal tears.” J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(11): 2478-2482. (Adapted for test validity example)
[17] Rhon, D. I., et al. “The Thessaly test: reliability and diagnostic accuracy in primary care.” BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009; 10: 143. (Adapted for test validity example)
[18] Whiting, P. F., et al. “Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic test accuracy.” Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(3): 189-202. (Adapted for bias in diagnostic studies)
[19] Croskerry, P. “Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications and implications of dual process theory of reasoning.” Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009; 14(1): 27-35. (Adapted for clinical cognition and error)
[20] Sapira, J. D. “Relevance of the physical examination: verification bias.” South Med J. 1995; 88(8): 797-799. (Adapted for verification bias)
[21] Glasziou, P. P., &
