When clinical description becomes statistical prediction.
When clinical description becomes statistical prediction.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0003-066x.59.7.595
复制
发表时间：
2004-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Westen;J. Weinberger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Westen;J. Weinberger
本文重新考虑了临床预测与统计预测的问题。术语临床广泛用于表示2个独立轴的1极：数据被汇总的观察者（临床医生/专家vs.外行）和汇总这些数据的方法（印象主义vs.统计学）。50年的研究表明，当公式可用时，统计汇总在大多数情况下优于非正式的主观汇总。然而，这些数据几乎没有关系的问题，是否，或在什么条件下，临床医生可以作出可靠和有效的观察和推断的一般性水平相关的实践或有用的数据进行统计汇总。一个新兴的研究机构表明，临床观察，就像外行观察一样，可以使用标准的心理测量程序进行量化，因此临床描述成为统计预测。
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.