Abstract
The background of Paul E. Meehl's work on clinical versus statistical prediction is reviewed, with detailed analyses of his arguments. Meehl's four main contributions were the following: (a) he put the question, of whether clinical or statistical combinations of psychological data yielded better predictions, at center stage in applied psychology; (b) he convincingly argued, against an array of objections, that clinical versus statistical prediction was a real (not concocted) problem needing thorough study; (c) he meticulously and evenโhandedly dissected the logic of clinical inference from theoretical and probabilistic standpoints; and (c) he reviewed the studies available in 1954 and thereafter, which tested the validity of clinical versus statistical predictions. His early conclusion that the literature strongly favors statistical prediction has stood up extremely well, and his conceptual analyses of the prediction problem (especially his defense of applying aggregateโbased probability statements to individual cases) have not been significantly improved since 1954. ยฉ 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 61: 1233โ1243, 2005.