Blankenhorn A, Cerbus G
Percept Mot Skills. 1975 Feb;40(1):99-102. doi: 10.2466/pms.1975.40.1.99.
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.
本研究考察了培训类型和教育水平对临床判断的影响，这在对格雷厄姆 - 肯德尔图形记忆测验（1960年）的“临床”和“精算”评估中得到了体现。18名评判员对6名器质性患者和6名非器质性患者的病例进行了评估，这些患者在年龄和智商上相匹配。其中9名评判员是心理学家，另外9名拥有心理学以外其他领域的学位。每组中3名评判员拥有博士学位，3名拥有硕士学位，3名拥有学士学位。无论教育水平如何，两组在脑损伤的临床或精算诊断方面均无显著差异（p大于0.01），评分者间信度几乎相同。研究结果与其他关于临床判断的研究一致。
