Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,207

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores.

Meehl, Paul E., Rosen, Albert·1955·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

In clinical practice, psychologists frequently participate in the making of vital decisions concerning the classification, treatment, prognosis, and disposition of individuals. In their attempts to increase the number of correct classifications and predictions, psychologists have developed and applied many psychometric devices, such as patterns of test responses as well as cutting scores for scales, indices, and sign lists. Since diagnostic and prognostic statements can often be made with a high degree of accuracy purely on the basis of actuarial or experience tables (referred to hereinafter as base rates), a psychometric device, to be efficient, must make possible a greater number of correct decisions than could be made in terms of the base rates alone. The efficiency of the great majority of psychometric devices reported in the clinical psychology literature is difficult or impossible to evaluate for the following reasons: a. Base rates are virtually never reported. It is, therefore, difficult to determine whether or not a given device results in a greater number of correct decisions than would be possible solely on the basis of the rates from previous experience. When, 1 From the Neuropsychiatric Service, VA Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the Divisions of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology of the University of Minnesota Medical School. The senior author carried on his part of this work in connection with his appointment to the Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0048070

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 1,207

Metadata

Authors
Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1955
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
194-216
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2047032198
Cited by
1,207
References
11
FWCI
19.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0048070
The paper
Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048070

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.