Clinical Psychology—Art or Science

Abstract

This paper questions the oft-repeated statement that clinical psychology is an art by examining the main functions of clinical psychologists, i.e., diagnosis and treatment. In examining the concept of diagnosis, evidence is presented which supports the notion that a diagnostic statement has meaning only when it has a referent in the future—when it provides a prediction. A prediction (probability-statement) is determined empirically and may be stated in terms of a regression equation or in terms of a crude generalization from clinical experience. Treatment likewise is determined by tacit or expressed predictions of behavior under alternative conditions. The various conceptions of art as applied to clinical psychology are examined and the conclusion is drawn that clinical psychology is a scientific as opposed to an artistic or intuitive enterprise.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.