Abstract
The use of machine learning is increasing in clinical psychology, yet it is unclear whether these approaches enhance the prediction of clinical outcomes. Several studies show that machine-learning algorithms outperform traditional linear models. However, many studies that have found such an advantage use the same algorithm, random forests with the optimism-corrected bootstrap, for internal validation. Through both a simulation and empirical example, we demonstrate that the pairing of nonlinear, flexible machine-learning approaches, such as random forests with the optimism-corrected bootstrap, provide highly inflated prediction estimates. We find no advantage for properly validated machine-learning models over linear models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
