Actuarial Vs. Clinical Predictions There Are Several Term Paper

Actuarial vs. Clinical Predictions

There are several issues of note in the time-honored debate as to whether it is more effective to employs actuarial or clinical predications for the purpose of assessment. On the one hand, it would appear congruent with the job of psychologists to actually perform clinical studies and utilize predictions as such to evaluate various issues of people and of incidents. The principle problem with this approach is that it leaves room for human error, which can overthrow the entire purpose of a clinical study. Conversely, there is little denying the fact that an actuarial "set of rules" (Kaplan, year, p. 554) can oftentimes determine the results of clinical studies without such human error. However, the actuarial approach may possibly be bested by a clinical approach when there is a "variety of sources" (Kaplan, year, p.554) contributing data to clinical predications. Of course, the clinicians would still need to correctly interpret such data and utilize it as bereft of errors as possible. Additionally, it is worth noting that if an actuarial approach is utilized, one can imply clinicians can simply figure out these predictions via the means of computers -- which inherently reduces the role of the clinician in performing a research study. As such, clinicians have the question of choosing to utilize such technological means of doing their work for them, or systematically engaging in clinical studies while attempting to reduce error as much as possible.

Human Rights and Testing

Of the many prominent issues related to human rights and testing, the willingness on the part of the subject who is tested is fairly critical one. Most test takers are willing participants. However, there are three instances in which their volition is either suggested or not necessary for them to partake in a test. These three instances are when assessment is used to gauge a person's right to make a decision (such as in legal settings), when the legislation or the government mandates testing, and when consent is strongly suggested as necessary for some "organizational activity" (Kaplan, year, p.555).One of the reason for why these situations in which willingness is not require on the part of the participant are so critical to human rights is because they are related to issues of privacy. Privacy issues can take many forms when applied to human rights, and may involve elements of testing security and confidentiality, so that the results of the test are not used by individuals to whom the test taker did not grant consent. Additionally, human rights issues related to testing involve whether or not the participant will be made aware of the results and of their implication. Many of the aforementioned issues can be exacerbated when testing is done via computers and the internet, so that the American Psychological Association explicit clinician requirements for the "electronic transmission of information" (Kaplan, year, p. 555)

Labeling

Labeling can present tenuous situations which easily go from positive to negative. When labeling individuals based on an evaluation of a clinical practitioner in psychology, there may be a tendency to transfer the responsibility of that person's actions from him or herself to the condition. In this respect, labels are viewed by people as limitations or, worse, as excuses to engage in incorrigible behavior for the simple fact that they have the proverbial safety net to rely on instead of accepting responsibility for their actions. There is a definite loss of control on the part of the individual when this sort of negative stigma towards labeling is internalized. The effects of such stigmas are "perhaps for life" (Kaplan, year, p. 555). The reality is that these negative….....