Cited by 1,640Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsForecasting Techniques and Applications

Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis

Grove, William M., Zald, David H., Lebow, Boyd S., Snitz, Beth E., Nelson, Chad·2000·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19

Cites

183 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2000
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
19-30
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2168729696
Cited by
1,640
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 92 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 64
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
Keywords
clinical prediction, prediction accuracy, data combination, judgment and decision making, human behavior prediction
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review