Biomedical subjects

Joel Weinberger

Publications and source records attributed to Joel Weinberger.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

In praise of clinical judgment: Meehl's forgotten legacy.

Although Paul E. Meehl demonstrated the limits of informal aggregation of data and prognostication by presumed experts, he remained convinced that clinical experience confers expertise of some kind. The authors explore this forgotten side of Meehl's legacy by reconsidering the validity of clinical judgment in its natural context, everyday clinical work. Three domains central to clinical practice are examined: diagnosis, interpretation of meaning, and intervention. It is argued that a more sanguine picture of clinical expertise emerges when the focus shifts from prediction at high levels of inference to (a) judgments at a moderate level of inference, (b) contexts for which clinical training and experience are likely to confer expertise, and (c) conditions that optimize the expression of that expertise (e.g., use of instruments designed for expert observers). The authors conclude by examining domains in which clinical judgment could prove useful in knowledge generation (e.g., hypothesis generation, identification of falsifying instances, item development).

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2004

When clinical description becomes statistical prediction.

This article reconsiders the issue of clinical versus statistical prediction. The term clinical is widely used to denote 1 pole of 2 independent axes: the observer whose data are being aggregated (clinician/expert vs. lay) and the method of aggregating those data (impressionistic vs. statistical). Fifty years of research suggests that when formulas are available, statistical aggregation outperforms informal, subjective aggregation much of the time. However, these data have little bearing on the question of whether, or under what conditions, clinicians can make reliable and valid observations and inferences at a level of generality relevant to practice or useful as data to be aggregated statistically. An emerging body of research suggests that clinical observations, just like lay observations, can be quantified using standard psychometric procedures, so that clinical description becomes statistical prediction.

Cognition↗

PubMed2002

Where's the text? The problem of validation in psychoanalysis.

Whatever their differences, the various schools of psychoanalysis all subscribe to the case study, based on clinical vignette and anecdote, as the "text" of psychoanalysis. Because the typical case study presents not the actual analytic dialogue but a reconstruction based on the analyst's selective memory, the use of such a text renders problematic the validation of an analyst's case formulation, and has traditionally diminished the epistemological status of psychoanalysis. Pristine clinical data, as would be provided by verbatim transcripts of audio-recorded analytic sessions, are rarely created and even more rarely made public. Study of the psychoanalytic process is thereby made impossible, whether by clinical exegesis, qualitative analysis, or quantitative statistical analysis. Yet the analytic community, highly resistant to this public documentation, continues to marshal five common arguments against it. These arguments are reviewed and responded to in the belief that such documentation would enhance the field's intellectual status by allowing the problem of clinical validation to be addressed in ways that move beyond appeals to the authority of private clinical experience.

Confidentiality↗