Clinical and “Actuarial” Evaluation of Organic Brain Damage by Psychologists and Non-Psychologists Using the Memory-for-Designs

Ann Blankenhorn · George Cerbus

3 citations0/0 files storedPerceptual and Motor Skills

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Memory Processes and Influences Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Abstract

This study examined the effects of type of training and level of education on clinical judgment, as demonstrated in "clinical" and "actuarial" evaluation of the Graham-Kendall Memory-for-Designs (1960). Protocols of 6 organic and 6 non-organic patients matched for age and IQ were evaluated by 18 judges. Nine of the judges were psychologists and nine had degrees in some field other than psychology. In each group 3 judges had PhDs, 3 had Master's degrees and 3 had Bachelor's degrees. There was no significant difference (p greater than .01) between the 2 groups in clinical or actuarial diagnoses of brain damage regardless of level of education, and inter-rater reliability was all but identical. Results were consistent with other research on clinical judgment.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

References

1960MEMORY-FOR-DESIGNS TEST: REVISED GENERAL MANUAL 1959The effectiveness of clinicians' judgments: The diagnosis of organic brain damage from the Bender-Gestalt Test.1955Ability to judge personality assessed with a stress interview and sound-film technique.1963Comparative effciency of some tests of cerebral damage.1965An evaluation of criteria used by clinicians to infer pathology from figure drawings.1967Clinical judgment from the MMPI: Simple or complex?1967Actuarial, naive clinical, and sophisticated clinical prediction of pathology from figure drawings.1951Differences in prediction based on hearing versus reading verbatim clinical interviews.

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.