APA PsycNET Our Apologies! - The following features are not available with your current Browser configuration. - get an abstract for a record - mobile App popup - get an abstract for a record - get all abstracts for all records - page navigation - memorize search form information - display database popup information - adjust limits on search form
Skip Navigationecxbqtaae

Home

Facebook image Twitter image
Login    Languages 
APA PsycNET Direct
Article Selected
Add to Cart
$11.95
The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making.
By Dawes, Robyn M.
American Psychologist, Vol 34(7), Jul 1979, 571-582.
Abstract
Proper linear models are those in which predictor variables are given weights such that the resulting linear composite optimally predicts some criterion of interest; examples of proper linear models are standard regression analysis, discriminant function analysis, and ridge regression analysis. Research summarized in P. Meehl's (1954) book on clinical vs statistical prediction and research stimulated in part by that book indicate that when a numerical criterion variable (e.g., graduate GPA) is to be predicted from numerical predictor variables, proper linear models outperform clinical intuition. Improper linear models are those in which the weights of the predictor variables are obtained by some nonoptimal method. The present article presents evidence that even such improper linear models are superior to clinical intuition when predicting a numerical criterion from numerical predictors. In fact, unit (i.e., equal) weighting is quite robust for making such predictions. The application of unit weights to decide what bullet the Denver Police Department should use is described; some technical, psychological, and ethical resistances to using linear models in making social decisions are considered; and arguments that could weaken these resistances are presented. (50 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)