Research has indicated that clinical judgments are not as accurate as clinicians' confidence in them would warrant. Such overconfidence appears to be the consequence of a number of decision making biases such as the confirmatory bias. A number of debiasing techniques aimed at reducing bias have been suggested and attempted with mixed results. The present study aimed to use the debiasing techniques which have been demonstrated to be the most efficacious with a view to examining the relationship between accuracy, confidence and the ability to act. The investigation of clinical judgments however, is problematic. Factors such as the way in which accuracy is defined and the types of task the clinician has to perform, will have a fundamental influence on the results. This study attempts to explore some of these issues by defining new measures of accuracy and making attempts to develop a task that is more akin to the everyday work that clinicians engage in. 36 clinical psychologists took part in the study. They were asked to make a series of judgments about potential underlying mechanisms that were maintaining the client's presenting problem. The control group were allowed to make decisions in their usual manner whilst those who were in the experimental group incorporated debiasing techniques. The results suggest that the utilisation of debiasing techniques did not improve accuracy but they appeared to significantly reduce confidence ratings. The results also demonstrated that there was a significant correlation between confidence and ability to act. The clinical implications of the findings are discussed and suggestions made for further research.