Cited by 737Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction

Ægisdóttir, Stefanía, White, Michael J., Spengler, Paul M., Maugherman, Alan S., Anderson, Linda A., Cook, Robert S., Nichols, Cassandra N., Lampropoulos, Georgios K. +3 more·2006·The Counseling Psychologist

Abstract

Clinical predictions made by mental health practitioners are compared with those using statistical approaches. Sixty-seven studies were identified from a comprehensive search of 56 years of research; 92 effect sizes were derived from these studies. The overall effect of clinical versus statistical prediction showed a somewhat greater accuracy for statistical methods. The most stringent sample of studies, from which 48 effect sizes were extracted, indicated a 13% increase in accuracy using statistical versus clinical methods. Several variables influenced this overall effect. Clinical and statistical prediction accuracy varied by type of prediction, the setting in which predictor data were gathered, the type of statistical formula used, and the amount of information available to the clinicians and the formulas. Recommendations are provided about when and under what conditions counseling psychologists might use statistical formulas as well as when they can rely on clinical methods. Implications for clinical judgment research and training are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0011000005285875

Cites

153 of 153 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
Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., & Rush, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Ball State University (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • Washington State University (US)
  • Tripler Army Medical Center (US)
Venue
The Counseling Psychologist
Published
2006-05
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
341-382
ISSN
  • 0011-0000 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3861
OpenAlex
W2150412137
Cited by
737
References
153
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 29
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Counseling Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
clinical judgment, statistical forecasting, prediction accuracy, counseling psychology, effect size, mental health professionals, prediction formula

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