The process of making judgments and decisions requires a method for combining data. To compare the accuracy of clinical and mechanical (formal, statistical) data-combination techniques, we performed a meta-analysis on studies of human health and behavior. On average, mechanical-prediction techniques were about 10% more accurate than clinical predictions. Depending on the specific analysis, mechanical prediction substantially outperformed clinical prediction in 33%-47% of studies examined. Although clinical predictions were often as accurate as mechanical predictions, in only a few studies (6%-16%) were they substantially more accurate. Superiority for mechanical-prediction techniques was consistent, regardless of the judgment task, type of judges, judges' amounts of experience, or the types of data being combined. Clinical predictions performed relatively less well when predictors included clinical interview data. These data indicate that mechanical predictions of human behaviors are equal or superior to clinical prediction methods for a wide range of circumstances.

/pdf/clinical-versus-mechanical-prediction-a-meta-analysis-4wov3bdnn5.pdf

Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis.

Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy.

The three major approaches to personality scale construction, the external, inductive, and deductive strategies, are discussed and their rationales compared. It is suggested that all scales should possess validity, communicability, and economy. The relative importance of these characteristics, however, varies with the purpose for which the instrument is being constructed. A review of more than a dozen comparative studies revealed no consistent superiority of any strategy in terms of validity or predictive effectiveness. But deductive scales normally communicate information more directly to an assessor, and they are definitely more economical to build and to administer. Thus, wherever there is a genuine choice, the simple deductive approach is recommended. Furthermore, self-rating scales narrowly but consistently outdo questionnaire scales in terms of validity and are clearly superior in terms of communicability and economy. There may not be many situations in which the widespread preference for questionnaires is justified. It is concluded that the more commonsensical approaches to personality measurement have a lot to offer. Anyone who is bold enough today to develop a general-purpose personality inventory has basically three options for how to go about it. They are the external approach (also called "empirical," or "criterion group"), the inductive approach (also called "internal," "internal consistency," or "itemetric"), and the deductive approach (also called "rational," "intuitive," or "theoretical"). This article reviews their respective merits on both a priori and empirical grounds. For clarity's sake I will exaggerate the differences between the philosophies associated with these three approaches.

Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits.

After bilateral ablation of orbital and lower mesial frontal cortices, a patient had profound changes of behavior that have remained stable for 8 years. Although he could not meet personal and professional responsibilities, his “measurable” intelligence was superior, and he was therefore considered a “malingerer.” Neurologic and neuropsychological examinations were otherwise intact. CT, MRI, and SPET revealed a localized lesion of the orbital and lower mesial frontal cortices. All other cerebral areas had normal structure and radioactivity patterns. Such impairments of motivation and complex social behavior were not seen in control cases with superior mesial or dorsolateral frontal lesions.

Severe disturbance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR

Objectives. This study assessed the differential effects of face-to-face interviewing and audio-computer assisted self-interviewing (audio-CASI) on categories of questions.Methods. Syringe exchange program participants (n = 1417) completed face-to-face interviews or audio-CASI. The questionnaire was categorized into the groups “stigmatized behaviors,” “neutral behaviors,” and “psychological distress.” Interview modes were compared for questions from each category.Results. Audio-CASI elicited more frequent reporting of “stigmatized behaviors” than face-to-face interviews. Face-to-face interviewing elicited more frequent reporting of “psychological distress” than audio-CASI.Conclusions. Responding to potentially sensitive questions should not be seen as merely “providing data,” but rather as an activity with complex motivations. These motivations can include maintaining social respect, obtaining social support, and altruism. Ideally, procedures for collecting self-report data would maximize altruistic motiv...

The Differential Effects of Face-to-Face and Computer Interview Modes

The Actuarial Use of the MMPI With Adolescents and Adults

and socials"; entirely self from a high 'I'he authors which is transmitted through a flexible coupling to the axle of the roller pump. Because of the mechanical advantage of the reduction gear, moderate variations in load are not transmitted to the motor. Variations in blood flow-rate are achieved by varying the degree of compression of the tubing in the rollers, by means of a manual screw adjustment (Figure I). It was found necessary to put ball-bearings in the rollers after the first dialysis, to eliminate friction trouble in the rollers after prolonged use and soiling with blood.

Actuarial description of abnormal personality : an atlas for use with the MMPI

On the Barnum effect

The heterogeneity of some common psychiatric stereotypes.

A study of change in stereotype conceptions of psychological disorders.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

William Seeman

Author Tools

Chat about Author