Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Clinical versus statistical prediction [electronic resource] : a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence.

By: Meehl, Paul E. (Paul Everett), 1920-.
Publisher: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press [1954]Description: 149 p. 23 cm.Subject(s): Psychodiagnostics | Prediction (Psychology) | Prognosis | PsychologyAdditional physical formats: OriginalDDC classification: 616.8 Online resources: Fulltext available via EBSCOhost - Shibboleth login required Also issued in print.Summary: "This monograph is an expansion of lectures given in the years 1947-1950 to graduate colloquia at the universities of Chicago, Iowa, and Wisconsin, and of a lecture series delivered to staff and trainees at the Veterans Administration Mental Hygiene Clinic at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Perhaps a general remark in clarification of my own position is in order. Students in my class in clinical psychology have often reacted to the lectures on this topic as to a protective technique, complaining that I was biased either for or against statistics (or the clinician), depending mainly on where the student himself stood! This I have, of course, found very reassuring. One clinical student suggested that I tally the pro-con ratio for the list of honorific and derogatory adjectives in Chapter 1 (page 4), and the reader will discover that this unedited sample of my verbal behavior puts my bias squarely at the midline. The style and sequence of the paper reflect my own ambivalence and real puzzlement, and I have deliberately left the document in this discursive form to retain the flavor of the mental conflict that besets most of us who do clinical work but try to be scientists. I have read and heard too many rapid-fire, once-over-lightly "resolutions" of this controversy to aim at contributing another such. The thing is just not that simple. I was therefore not surprised to discover that the same sections which one reader finds obvious and over-elaborated, another singles out as especially useful for his particular difficulties. My thesis in a nutshell: "There is no convincing reason to assume that explicitly formalized mathematical rules and the clinician's creativity are equally suited for any given kind of task, or that their comparative effectiveness is the same for different tasks. Current clinical practice should be much more critically examined with this in mind than it has been"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Item type Current location Collection Call number Status Notes Date due Barcode Item holds
E-BOOK E-BOOK Tavistock and Portman Library
electronic full-text resource
Psycbooks via EBSCOhost E-BOOK (Browse shelf) Not for loan Shibboleth login
Total holds: 0

"This monograph is an expansion of lectures given in the years 1947-1950 to graduate colloquia at the universities of Chicago, Iowa, and Wisconsin, and of a lecture series delivered to staff and trainees at the Veterans Administration Mental Hygiene Clinic at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Perhaps a general remark in clarification of my own position is in order. Students in my class in clinical psychology have often reacted to the lectures on this topic as to a protective technique, complaining that I was biased either for or against statistics (or the clinician), depending mainly on where the student himself stood! This I have, of course, found very reassuring. One clinical student suggested that I tally the pro-con ratio for the list of honorific and derogatory adjectives in Chapter 1 (page 4), and the reader will discover that this unedited sample of my verbal behavior puts my bias squarely at the midline. The style and sequence of the paper reflect my own ambivalence and real puzzlement, and I have deliberately left the document in this discursive form to retain the flavor of the mental conflict that besets most of us who do clinical work but try to be scientists. I have read and heard too many rapid-fire, once-over-lightly "resolutions" of this controversy to aim at contributing another such. The thing is just not that simple. I was therefore not surprised to discover that the same sections which one reader finds obvious and over-elaborated, another singles out as especially useful for his particular difficulties. My thesis in a nutshell: "There is no convincing reason to assume that explicitly formalized mathematical rules and the clinician's creativity are equally suited for any given kind of task, or that their comparative effectiveness is the same for different tasks. Current clinical practice should be much more critically examined with this in mind than it has been"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Also issued in print.

Electronic reproduction. Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association, 2005. Available via the World Wide Web. Access limited by licensing agreement. s2005 dcunns.

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust Library, 120 Belsize Lane, London NW3 5BA.

020 8938 2520
library@tavi-port.ac.uk.
http://library.tavistockandportman.ac.uk
Moodle

//