Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment
- 31 March 1989
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science
- Vol. 243 (4899) , 1668-1674
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 42 references indexed in Scilit:
- Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress?Psychological Review, 1986
- Clinical detection of intellectual deterioration associated with brain damageJournal of Clinical Psychology, 1984
- The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making.American Psychologist, 1979
- Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.Psychological Review, 1978
- Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.Psychological Review, 1978
- Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975
- Unit weighting schemes for decision makingOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975
- Expert measurement and mechanical combinationOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972
- A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making.American Psychologist, 1971
- When shall we use our heads instead of the formula?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1957