Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment

Professionals are frequently consulted to diagnose and predict human behavior; optimal treatment and planning often hinge on the consultant's judgmental accuracy. The consultant may rely on one of two contrasting approaches to decision-making--the clinical and actuarial methods. Research compar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inScience (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Vol. 243; no. 4899; pp. 1668 - 1674
Main Authors Dawes, Robyn M., Faust, David, Meehl, Paul E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States The American Association for the Advancement of Science 31.03.1989
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Subjects
Actuarial Analysis
Analysis
Behavior
Behavioral Sciences - methods
Brain damage
Clinical judgment
Clinical psychology
Decision making
Diagnosis, Differential
Health care
Health outcomes
Human behavior
Humans
Judgment
Management
Medical protocols
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental Disorders - therapy
Mental health outcomes
Observational research
Psychology
Psychometrics
Statistical decision
Statistical decision theory
Statistics
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Professionals are frequently consulted to diagnose and predict human behavior; optimal treatment and planning often hinge on the consultant's judgmental accuracy. The consultant may rely on one of two contrasting approaches to decision-making--the clinical and actuarial methods. Research comparing these two approaches shows the actuarial method to be superior. Factors underlying the greater accuracy of actuarial methods, sources of resistance to the scientific findings, and the benefits of increased reliance on actuarial approaches are discussed.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Review-1
ISSN:0036-8075
1095-9203
DOI:10.1126/science.2648573