CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,457Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical -statistical controversy

Grove, William M., Meehl, Paul E.·1996·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
DOI 10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Given a data set about an individual or group (e.g., interviewer ratings, life history or demographic facts, test results, self-descriptions), there are two modes of data combination for a predictive or diagnostic purpose. The clinical method relies on human judgment that is based on informal contemplation and, sometimes, discussion with others (e.g., case conferences). The mechanical method involves a formal, algorithmic, objective procedure (e.g., equation) to reach the decision. Empirical comparisons of the accuracy of the two methods (136 studies over a wide range of predictands) show that the mechanical method is almost invariably equal to or superior to the clinical method: Common antiactuarial arguments are rebutted, possible causes of widespread resistance to the comparative research are offered, and policy implications of the statistical method’s superiority are discussed. In 1928, the Illinois State Board of Parole published a study by sociologist Burgess of the parole outcome for 3,000 criminal offenders, an exhaustive sample of parolees in a period of years preceding. (In Meehl 1954/1996, this number is erroneously reported as 1,000, a slip probably arising from the fact that 1,000 cases came from each of three Illinois prisons.) Burgess combined 21 objective factors (e.g., nature of crime,

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Decisions based on regression are less likely to be subject to bias, they are consistent, the basis for the decisions can be fully explained and they are generally useful.

    “As a result, decisions based on regression are less likely to be subject to bias, they are consistent, the basis for the decisions can be fully explained and they are generally useful.”

    From Illusions in Regression Analysis (2011) · cites this paper as Grove and Meehl 1996

  • The gains from regression-based decisions are especially well documented when compared to judgmental decisions based on the same data.

    “The gains are especially well documented when compared to judgmental decisions based on the same data (Grove and Meehl 1996; Armstrong 2001).”

    From Illusions in Regression Analysis (2011) · cites this paper as Grove and Meehl 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1996-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
293-323
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
DOI
10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
OpenAlex
W2102256472
Cited by
1,457
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 60
FWCI
21.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
clinical judgment, statistical forecasting, prediction accuracy, actuarial methods, parole decision-making, case conferences

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