Actuarial vs. Clinical Predictions There Are Several

Actuarial vs. Clinical Predictions There are several issues of note in the time-honored debate as to whether it is more effective to employs actuarial or clinical predications for the purpose of assessment. On the one hand, it would appear congruent with the job of psychologists to actually perform clinical studies and utilize predictions as such to evaluate various issues of people and of incidents. The principle problem with this approach is that it leaves room for human error, which can overthrow the entire purpose of a clinical study.

Conversely, there is little denying the fact that an actuarial "set of rules" (Kaplan, year, p. 554) can oftentimes determine the results of clinical studies without such human error. However, the actuarial approach may possibly be bested by a clinical approach when there is a "variety of sources" (Kaplan, year, p.554) contributing data to clinical predications. Of course, the clinicians would still need to correctly interpret such data and utilize it as bereft of errors as possible.

Additionally, it is worth noting that if an actuarial approach is utilized, one can imply clinicians can simply figure out these predictions via the means of computers -- which inherently reduces the role of the clinician in performing a research study. As such, clinicians have the question of choosing to utilize such technological means of doing their work for them, or systematically engaging in clinical studies while attempting to reduce error as much as possible.

Human Rights and Testing Of the many prominent issues related to human rights and testing, the willingness on the part of the subject who is tested is fairly critical one. Most test takers are willing participants. However, there are three instances in which their volition is either suggested or not necessary for them to partake in a test.

These three instances are when assessment is used to gauge a person's right to make a decision (such as in legal settings), when the legislation or the government mandates testing, and when consent is strongly suggested as necessary for some "organizational activity" (Kaplan, year, p.555). One of the reason for why these situations in which willingness is not require on the part of the participant are so critical to human rights is because they are related to issues of privacy.

Privacy issues can take many forms when applied to human rights, and may involve elements of testing security and confidentiality, so that the results of the test are not used by individuals to whom the test taker did not grant consent. Additionally, human rights issues related to testing involve whether or not the participant will be made aware of the results and of their implication.

Many of the aforementioned issues can be exacerbated when testing is done via computers and the internet, so that the American Psychological Association explicit clinician requirements for the "electronic transmission of information" (Kaplan, year, p. 555) Labeling Labeling can present tenuous situations which easily go from positive to negative. When labeling individuals based on an evaluation of a clinical practitioner in psychology, there may be a tendency to transfer the responsibility of that person's actions from him or herself to the condition.

In this respect, labels are viewed by people as limitations or, worse, as excuses to engage in incorrigible behavior for the simple fact that they have the proverbial safety net to rely on instead of accepting responsibility for their actions. There is a definite loss of control on the part of the individual when this sort of negative stigma towards labeling is internalized. The effects of such stigmas are "perhaps for life" (Kaplan, year, p. 555).

The reality is that these negative facets of labeling must be balanced by the need to label people who have incurred certain psychological conditions. In certain situations, people need to be aware of these conditions, especially if they may adversely affect them. As such, it is largely up to the individual who has such a condition to take responsibility for his or her condition and to attempt to minimize the negative aspects of labeling by not enabling themselves to be circumscribed.

Still, practitioners should be aware of these adverse effects of labeling, and attempt to explain them to patients to help them in the process of living after having received a label. As such, labeling is truly one of the moral issues (Kaplan, year, p. 554) associated with psychological practice today. Divided Loyalties Divided loyalties can make the job of a practicing psychologist difficult, for the simple fact that situations may arise in which there is considerable ambiguity as to where the psychologist's primary responsibilities lie.

Psychologists have a professional obligation to fulfill the objectives of the entity that has hired them, regardless if such an entity is public or private. At the same time, however, psychologists have a professional responsibility to help facilitate the welfare of their individual patients -- which the hiring agent is paying the clinician for. Questions of privacy, confidentiality, and test security can set these two interested parties -- the patient and the hiring organization -- in opposition.

As such, the clinician may feel conflicted about where his or her true duty lies in such situations. However, it is fairly pivotal to realize that the best way for clinicians to resolve such situations is to ensure that they do not happen and tell both parties up front, both the hiring agency and especially his or her patient, the true nature of the clinician's responsibility.

Doing so clears alleviates all possibilities of ambiguity when practitioners "tell clients or subjects in advance how tests are to be used and describe the limits of confidentiality" (Kaplan, year, p. 557). Dehumanization and Testing Dehumanization is a very real concern for not just practitioners but also for test subjects today. Contemporary society's increasing reliance on technology makes it possible that.