In defense of clinical judgment … and mechanical prediction

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Dana ◽  
Rick Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Mechanical Prediction

Factor Analysis of Measures of Articulation, Language, Auditory Processing, Reading-Spelling, and Maxillofacial Structure

1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-324
Author(s):  
Anita F. Johnson ◽  
Ralph L. Shelton ◽  
William B. Arndt ◽  
Montie L. Furr
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Auditory Processing

This study was concerned with the correspondence between the classification of measures by clinical judgment and by factor analysis. Forty-six measures were selected to assess language, auditory processing, reading-spelling, maxillofacial structure, articulation, and other processes. These were applied to 98 misarticulating eight- and nine-year-old children. Factors derived from the analysis corresponded well with categories the measures were selected to represent.

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Test of Clinical Judgment

1957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson D. Ashby ◽  
Donald H. Ford ◽  
Bernard G. Guerney ◽  
Louise F. Guerney
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Judgment

Clinical Judgment Revisited

1999 ◽  
Vol 38 (04/05) ◽  
pp. 279-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. L. Weed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Practice ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
The Way

AbstractIt is widely recognised that accessing and processing medical information in libraries and patient records is a burden beyond the capacities of the physician’s unaided mind in the conditions of medical practice. Physicians are quite capable of tremendous intellectual feats but cannot possibly do it all. The way ahead requires the development of a framework in which the brilliant pieces of understanding are routinely assembled into a working unit of social machinery that is coherent and as error free as possible – a challenge in which we ourselves are among the working parts to be organized and brought under control.Such a framework of intellectual rigor and discipline in the practice of medicine can only be achieved if knowledge is embedded in tools; the system requiring the routine use of those tools in all decision making by both providers and patients.

The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
scott lilienfeld ◽  
Josh Miller ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Psychiatric Status ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
Duty To Inform

When, if ever, should psychological scientists be permitted to offer professional opinions concerning the mental health of public figures they have never directly examined? This contentious question, which attracted widespread public attention during the 1964 U.S. presidential election involving Barry Goldwater, received renewed scrutiny during and after the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when many mental health professionals raised pointed questions concerning the psychiatric status of Donald Trump. Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. We contend that, owing largely to the Goldwater Rule’s origins in psychiatry, a substantial body of psychological research on assessment and clinical judgment, including work on the questionable validity of unstructured interviews, the psychology of cognitive biases, and the validity of informant reports and of L (lifetime) data, has been overlooked in discussions of its merits. We conclude that although the Goldwater Rule may have been defensible several decades ago, it is outdated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We further contend that there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a “duty to inform,” allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures’ mental health with appropriate caveats.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document