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

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 > .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.