The Pros And Cons Of Clinical Assessment

The clinical and statistical approaches have both proven to be successful methods in clinical psychology. Each approach has its pros and cons depending on the type of situation that is being dealt with. Clinical judgment can be a complex process because it requires a patient’s data which are composed of samples, observations, signs of underlying states and the clinician’s responses. According to Sundberg, Tyler and Taplin (1973) clinical interpretation may consist of 3 different levels: Level 1 deals with clinicians being familiar with certain experiences, and therefore, making a prediction based off of that. An example of this would be the SAT or GRE assessments. Level 2 is comprised of clinicians carefully observing a patient’s behaviors and coming up with a conclusion based off of the behavior characteristics that the patient displays. In level 3, based off of the individual’s determinants in a specific situation, the clinician seeks a consistent understanding. For example, blood responses on the Rorschach test can be a determinant of hidden aggression, which would then lead to future impulsive outbursts or losing control of oneself (Sundverg, Tyler and Taplin 1973). Although both the clinical and statistical approaches have proven to be beneficial, I believe that clinical psychologists should not rely more on statistical predictions and prepackaged treatments than clinical judgment and individual patients.

In addition, with regards to clinical interpretations, there are 3 different theoretical approaches: The first approach is Behavioral and the intention for this is to seek a patient’s data based upon both, personal observations and direct reports. The interpretations are largely at levels 1 and 2 (Trull 2005). The second...

... middle of paper ...

...to clinically judge based upon certain diagnostic signs or a demographic group.

In conclusion, the clinical and statistical approaches in psychology can be beneficial to clinicians depending on the types of situations or specific areas that are being observed. As I mentioned earlier in my paper, the statistical method is useful when results are large and from heterogeneous samples and when they pertain to objective and specific areas. The clinical approach is beneficial in circumstances where situations are unforeseen rendering statistical tests moot. In addition, they are also useful when the interest in an individual case is high. Due to each individual being different and unique in their own way, I believe that clinicians should not rely heavily on statistical predictions and prepackaged treatments as opposed to clinical judgment and individual patients.