Although mechanical combination results in more valid human performance predictions and decisions than holistic combination, existing publications suggest that mechanical combination is rarely used in practice. Yet, these publications are either descriptions of anecdotal experiences or outdated surveys. Therefore, in several Western countries, we conducted two surveys (total N = 323) and two focus groups to investigate (1) how decision makers in psychological assessment and human resource practice combine information, (2) why they do (not) use mechanical combination, and (3) what may be needed to increase its use in practice. Many participants reported mostly using holistic combination, usually in teams. The most common reasons for not using mechanical combination were that algorithms are unavailable in practice and that stakeholders do not accept their use. Furthermore, decision makers do not quantify information, do not believe in research findings on evidence-based decision making, and think that combining holistic and mechanical combination results in the best decisions. The most important reason why mechanical combination is used was to increase predictive validity. To stimulate the use of mechanical combination in practice, decision makers indicated that they should receive more training on evidence-based decision making and that decision aids supporting the use of mechanical combination should be developed.

中文翻译：

---

心理评估中的整体和机械结合：为什么算法没有得到充分利用以及需要什么来增加它们的使用

尽管机械组合导致比整体组合更有效的人类绩效预测和决策，但现有出版物表明机械组合很少在实践中使用。然而，这些出版物要么是对轶事经历的描述，要么是过时的调查。因此，在几个西方国家，我们进行了两次调查（总N = 323) 和两个焦点小组调查 (1) 决策者在心理评估和人力资源实践中如何结合信息，(2) 为什么他们不（不）使用机械组合，以及 (3) 增加其使用可能需要什么在实践中。许多参与者报告主要使用整体组合，通常是团队合作。不使用机械组合的最常见原因是算法在实践中不可用，而且利益相关者不接受它们的使用。此外，决策者不量化信息，不相信循证决策的研究成果，认为整体和机械的结合才能做出最好的决策。使用机械组合的最重要原因是为了提高预测有效性。