Meehl's contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction
Meehl's contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0021-843x.115.2.192
复制
发表时间：
2006-05-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Lloyd, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grove, WM;Lloyd, M
Paul E. Meehl的临床与统计预测的争议的工作进行审查。他的贡献包括：把争论的中心舞台上的应用心理学;澄清辩论所依据的概念（尤其是他在收集数据的方式和组合数据的方式之间的关键区别）以及确立争议是真实的而不是捏造的，从理论和概率的角度分析临床推断，并回顾了比较这两种数据组合方法准确性的研究。Meehl（1954/1996）的结论，统计预测一贯优于临床判断已经站在非常好的半个世纪。他的概念分析自20世纪50年代和60年代发表以来并没有得到显著的改进。他在这一领域的工作包含了几个引用经典，这是今天所有有能力的应用心理学家的工作知识的一部分。
Paul E. Meehl's work on the clinical versus statistical prediction controversy is reviewed. His contributions included the following: putting the controversy center stage in applied psychology; clarifying concepts underpinning the debate (especially his crucial distinction between ways of gathering data and ways of combining them) as well as establishing that the controversy was real and not concocted, analyzing clinical inference from both theoretical and probabilistic points of view, and reviewing studies that compared the accuracy of these 2 methods of data combination. Meehl's (1954/1996) conclusion that statistical prediction consistently outperforms clinical judgment has stood up extremely well for half a century. His conceptual analyses have not been significantly improved since he published them in the 1950s and 1960s. His work in this area contains several citation classics, which are part of the working knowledge of all competent applied psychologists today.