The reactions by Ridley and Shaw-Ridley (EJ832451) and Lichtenberg (EJ832452) to the authors' meta-analysis on the effects of experience on judgment accuracy add positively to what is hoped will become an ever more focused discourse on this most basic question: How can mental health clinical decision making be improved? In this rejoinder, the authors respond to reactions by Ridley and Shaw-Ridley and by Lichtenberg to their meta-analysis on the effects of experience on clinical judgment decision making accuracy. The authors address reactions concerning the need for a metatheory of clinical decision making; the likely importance of feedback in an effective clinical judgment model; the notion that the authors' meta-analysis is rooted in the medical model (i.e., need for accuracy), suggesting it is not in line with a contextual model of counseling psychology; and that making statistical formulas more user-friendly and appealing in models of scientist-practitioner training should be pursued. The authors note that one point not raised by Ridley and Shaw-Ridley and Lichtenberg that might have significance for future research on experience is that poor reliability and construct validity of experience measures in these studies likely reduced the size of the overall experience-accuracy effect. The authors hope that future researchers shift the study of experience away from "more of the same" and into more serious and sophisticated analyses that advance clinical judgment theory, research, and practice.