When clinical description becomes statistical prediction.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article reconsiders the issue of clinical versus statistical prediction. The term clinical is widely used to denote 1 pole of 2 independent axes: the observer whose data are being aggregated (clinician/expert vs. lay) and the method of aggregating those data (impressionistic vs. statistical). Fifty years of research suggests that when formulas are available, statistical aggregation outperforms informal, subjective aggregation much of the time. However, these data have little bearing on the question of whether, or under what conditions, clinicians can make reliable and valid observations and inferences at a level of generality relevant to practice or useful as data to be aggregated statistically. An emerging body of research suggests that clinical observations, just like lay observations, can be quantified using standard psychometric procedures, so that clinical description becomes statistical prediction.

This publication has 95 references indexed in Scilit: