There is debate around using clinical judgment and actuarial judgment (i.e. use of standardized, normed, measurement tools vs. clinical observation/interview) when assessing and diagnosing clients. Using the attached articles, answer the questions: What are the key points of this debate? Is one better than the other? Are both necessary? Why or why not? What are the pros and cons of each assessment approach?
Select 2 metathoughts from Levys Tools of Critical Thinking, that you find particularly relevant to helping you consider this debate and explain how these tools help you to reason through your thoughts on this issue. In constructing your answer please make sure that you clearly and thoroughly explain how each metathought applies to this debate while using examples from the assigned readings to illustrate your point.