No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Ninety-eight psychology graduate students were asked to forecast first-yeargraduate grade point averages based on 110 profiles containing 10 cues derived from their fellow students' records. For each subject, the cue values were regressed onto the subjects' judgments (the model of man). Results indicated that the models (predicted judgments) were more accurate than the subjects' own judgments when correlated with the actual criterion. The average judgments for each profile were considerably more valid than the average of the judges' individual validities. Even the average judgments were improved upon by modeling. It was recommended that the model of man substitute for man in forecasting graduate grade point averages.

3 simulation models were applied to clinical judgments of "psychotic" vs. "neurotic" for 29 judges across 7 samples of MMPI profiles. A crossvalidated multiple correlation was used as a goodness-of-fit measure for the 3 judgment models. On this basis, each of the 29 clinical judges was characterized as being either "linear" or "configural" in his utilization of MMPI test data, where configurality was operationally defined by the fit of the data to a model employing configural, or patterned, variables. It was shown that configurality was a consistent judgmental characteristic distinguishing 16 of the judges, but this characteristic was unrelated to both accuracy and amount of clinical training. Also, judges, as a group, tended to change their manner of judgment with changes in samples of MMPI profiles.