Publication Date:
1989-03-31
Description:
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.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Notes: 〈/span〉Dawes, R M -- Faust, D -- Meehl, P E -- New York, N.Y. -- Science. 1989 Mar 31;243(4899):1668-74.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Author address: 〈/span〉Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Record origin:〈/span〉 〈a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2648573" target="_blank"〉PubMed〈/a〉
Keywords:
*Actuarial Analysis
;
Behavioral Sciences/*methods
;
Diagnosis, Differential
;
Humans
;
Mental Disorders/*diagnosis/therapy
Print ISSN:
0036-8075
Electronic ISSN:
1095-9203
Topics:
Biology
,
Chemistry and Pharmacology
,
Computer Science
,
Medicine
,
Natural Sciences in General
,
Physics
Permalink