- Tapa blanda: 164 páginas
- Editor: Echo Point Books & Media (12 de febrero de 2013)
- Idioma: Inglés
- ISBN-10: 0963878492
- ISBN-13: 978-0963878496
- Valoración media de los clientes: Sé el primero en opinar sobre este producto
- Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: nº300.699 en Libros en idiomas extranjeros (Ver el Top 100 en Libros en idiomas extranjeros)
Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence (Inglés) Tapa blanda – 12 feb 2013
Los clientes que compraron este producto también compraron
Descripción del producto
Reseña del editor
Clinical versus Statistical Prediction is Paul Meehl's famous examination of benefits and disutilities related to the different ways of combining information to make predictions. It is a clarifying analysis as relevant today as when it first appeared.
A major methodological problem for clinical psychology concerns the relation between clinical and actuarial methods of arriving at diagnoses and predicting behavior. Without prejudging the question as to whether these methods are fundamentally different, we can at least set forth the obvious distinctions between them in practical applications. The problem is to predict how a person is going to behave: What is the most accurate way to go about this task?
Clinical versus Statistical Prediction offers a penetrating and thorough look at the pros and cons of human judgment versus actuarial integration of information as applied to the prediction problem. Widely considered the leading text on the subject, Paul Meehl's landmark analysis is reprinted here in its entirety, including his updated preface written forty-two years after the first publication of the book.
This classic work is a must-have for students and practitioners interested in better understanding human behavior, for anyone wanting to make the most accurate decisions from all sorts of data, and for those interested in the ethics and intricacies of prediction. As Meehl puts it, "When one is dealing with human lives and life opportunities, it is immoral to adopt a mode of decision-making which has been demonstrated repeatedly to be either inferior in success rate or, when equal, costlier to the client or the taxpayer."
No es necesario ningún dispositivo Kindle. Descárgate una de las apps de Kindle gratuitas para comenzar a leer libros Kindle en tu smartphone, tablet u ordenador.
Obtén la app gratuita:
Detalles del producto
Si eres el vendedor de este producto, ¿te gustaría sugerir ciertos cambios a través del servicio de atención al vendedor?
Opiniones de clientes
|5 estrellas (0%)|
|4 estrellas (0%)|
|3 estrellas (0%)|
|2 estrellas (0%)|
|1 estrella (0%)|
Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com
Meehl's analysis dealt with how all of this information is combined. Should we do it in our heads, or should we use a mechanical decision aid, such as an equation or an actuarial table? He presented a sophisticated analysis of the task and considered conditions that might favor each approach. In one chapter, he reviewed the available empirical data, but this is not the focal point of this monograph.
An article by Grove and Meehl (1996) provides an excellent treatment of objections to mechanical decision aids, with persuasive rebuttals for each, and a meta-analysis by Grove et al (2000) provide a quantitative review of the empirical literature on the subject, including 136 studies that met fairly strict inclusion criteria (in contrast to the 20 studies that were available to Meehl for review in 1954).
Meehl's original conclusion that mechanical decision aids achieve validity rates equal or superior to those of experts exercising their unaided judgment has stood the test of time and is now supported by such a large and diverse array of studies that an impartial reader can reasonably conclude that this "controversy" has been settled.
Paul Meehl asks himself the question what "how can we predict how a person is going to behave?". He distinguishes 2 main approaches: clinical interviews VS statistics (psychometric tests) and discusses the pros and cons of both approaches.
For decades psychologists have been struggling between the use of tests (statistics) and (clinical) interviews. I ran into the problem myself when I did a Whiplash study in 1999 and found that many doctors made clear mistakes during the patient's LAB Profile interviews, to such an extend that the produced data was unreliable for further research! Since then, I reluctantly moved over to the testing side and co-developed the iWAM test (see jobEQ.com), but I recommend complementing tests with structured follow up interviews to check the validity of the test answers.
One of his main points pro testing is that "Every hour a clinician spends in thinking and talking about whom to treat, and how and how long, is being subtracted from the available pool of therapeutic time itself." The main counter argument of a clinician will be that every individual is a separate case and thus becomes hard to find in the numbers.
In global, one can say that Meehl holds a quite impartial point of view and tries to present approaches in a factual manner, trying to bring them together. A slight bias towards testing may be expected, given that Paul Meehl was a professor of Psychology and psychiatry at the University of Minnesota and also wrote a book on the clinical use of MMPI.
Complementary books you may what to read are "Psychological testing" by Kaplan & Saccuzzo (2001) and "How to think straight about psychology" by Stanovich, 2001