A closer look at the ability to predict psychotherapeutic outcome

Abstract

On the basis of previous findings on the varying ability clinically to predict the outcomes of psychotherapy, this study is focussed on the judgmental processes of good and not-so-good judges. To chart the mechanisms of predictive accuracy, the relations between the ratings of each judge and the criteria have been modelled in terms of structural equations. Further, the predictions of one good and one not-so-good judge have been analysed by multiple regression, with aspects of patient information as independent variables. The analyses suggest that, compared to the not-so-good judge, the good judge utilises more information and has more adequate ideas about its validity but not about its internal correlational structure. While not neglecting secondary process thinking, the good judge still leaves room for intuitive, non formalised judgment and also utilises available information in a more discriminating, or radical, manner. The not-so-good judge appears as an overly conscious and cautious person, neglecting much valid information, not discriminating among the variables, and using negatively valid information positively.