{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023980815347721823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.260869565217392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Computer-assisted judgment: defining strengths and liabilities.

Clinicians often fail to recognize limitations in their own subjective judgments, make use of well-developed mechanical-prediction methods, or carefully evaluate which computer-based aids warrant their consideration. This article addresses issues regarding computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs) and computer-based decision making. Comments highlight conclusions reached by other contributors to this Special Section, additional literature bearing on these observations, and implications for consumers of computer-assisted techniques and researchers developing or evaluating these methods. The future of computer-assisted assessment depends on educating clinicians and researchers to be better consumers of existing as well as emerging technologies in this domain.