Clinical Psychology

will scores from tests A, B, and C predict success in
college, therapy outcome, or aggressive outbursts?
Thispsychometric approach to interpretation, as we
shall see a bit later, is especially useful when the
criteria being predicted are crisp and well articu-
lated. In general, this approach uses data as corre-
lates of something else—for example, a score at the
95th percentile on test X may be related to recidi-
vism in prisoners. The psychometrically oriented
clinician is most concerned with standardized tests
and their norms, regression equations, or actuarial
tables.
A third group of clinicians is more comfortable
with a psychodynamic approach. This was once a
popular orientation in clinical psychology. The
psychodynamic approach strives to identify inner
states or determinants. Data from projective tests,

unstructured clinical interviews, and other sources

are viewed as signs of an underlying state. A broad,

often highly impressionistic picture of the patient is

drawn, although in many instances subtle norma-

tive assertions are made.

Quantitative Versus Subjective Approaches

Quietly embedded in the preceding discussion are

two distinct approaches to clinical judgment and

interpretation. First is thequantitative or statistical

approach, which emphasizes objectivity and is pre-

sumably free from fuzzy thinking. Second is the

subjective or clinical approach, which adherents claim

is the only method to offer truly useful interpreta-

tions and predictions.

Clinical psychologists must collect, integrate, and interpret data from multiple sources.

PhotoDisc

CLINICAL JUDGMENT 285