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...
[ View Full Essay]