The road to reform: Of editors and educators.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. The present article praises Wilkinson's article for making recommendations that are specific enough to bring about dramatic and badly needed changes in statistical practice. In this article, J. Friedrich discusses how these recommendations might be incorporated into professional practice, noting some of the potential obstacles to their implementation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Explaining the use of statistical methods.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. In this article, B. D. Haig criticizes the Wilkinson report for not making clear just when significance testing is appropriate and when it is not. Also, Haig notes that the TFSI should say something about the place of Bayesian statistical methods in psychological research, and should discuss the hypothetico-deductive method. Further criticism centers around the TFSI's failure to discuss computer-intensive resampling methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Significance testing and the science.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. D. Sohn's main criticism of this article is its failure to address the controversy over a particular way of drawing statistical inferences, the statistical significance test, which was the impetus for the report. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Increasing statistical power without increasing sample size.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. In this article, G. H. McClelland suggests that the TFSI may have created an unintended false impression that increasing sample size in the best or perhaps only remedy for improving statistical power. He notes that psychologists must consider design strategies other than augmenting sample size for increasing statistical power to reduce cost and minimize the burden on human or animal Ss. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Narrow and shallow.

Replies to comments by N. M. Blampied, J Friedrich, B.D. Haig, G. H. McClelland, and D. Sohn (see records 2000-00398-016, 2000-00398-017, 2000-00398-018, 2000-00398-019, and 2000-00398-020 respectively) on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. In this article, members of the TFSI respond to comments by other authors regarding the aforementioned article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.

In the light of continuing debate over the applications of significance testing in psychology journals and following the publication of J. Cohen's (1994) article, the Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) of the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a committee called the Task Force on Statistical Interference (TFSI) whose charge was "to elucidate some of the controversial issues surrounding applications of statistics including significance testing and its alternatives; alternative underlying models and data transformation; and newer methods made possible by powerful computers" (BSA, personal communication, February 28, 1996). After extensive discussion, the BSA recommended that publishing an article in American Psychologist, as a way to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting may be appropriate. This report follows that request. Following each guideline are comments, explanations, or elaborations assembled by L. Wilkinson for the task force and under its review. The report is concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. The title and format of the report are adapted from an article by J. C. Bailar and F. Mosteller (1988). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Separating group supervision from group therapy: Avoiding epistemological confusion.

Comments on M. T. Riva and J. A. Erickson's (see record 1996-09446-001) article examining group supervision practices in psychology predoctoral internships. The author argues that extant research in the area of group supervision has already provided evidence that suggests therapy-based group supervision environments or processes are likely not effective approaches to use with trainees. It is concluded that approaching group supervision primarily as a process of learning that is best informed by pedagogy, rather than as an activity similar to group therapy in its processes and goals, may assist supervisors and researchers in finding effective and ethical methods to train psychology students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diversifying our understanding of diversity and communication in groups: Dialoguing with Clark, Anand, and Roberson (2000).

M. A. Clark, V. Anand, and L. Roberson's (see record 2000-12222-001) article is a welcome addition to the growing literature on the nature, dynamics, and effects of diversity on small groups. Their model linking diversity with communicative practices and subsequent group and member outcomes provides an important conceptual framework that can help to synthesize existing research and suggest directions for future research. This article notes the contributions and limitations of the proposed model. Concerns are raised about what constitutes diversity, how best to conceptualize communicative behavior in groups, and methodological practices appropriate for studying diverse groups. Alternative conceptual lens and methodological procedures are offered for diversifying the study of diversity and communication in groups to ensure that the process mirrors the desired outcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Punishment revisited--Science, values, and the right question: Comment on Gershoff (2002).

In this comment on E. T. Gershoff's (2002, see record 2002-01514-001) article on parental punishment, the author notes the historical phases of punishment research. Punishment as a disciplinary tactic is best viewed as a packaged variable and therefore needs to be investigated in the context of other socialization practices. The role of parental values in this debate about punishment utilization and effectiveness merits more consideration. New directions in punishment research are also noted. These include the need for a family-systems perspective, a family-typology approach, a transactional model of punishment, the use of innovation observation and self-report methods, and more culturally sensitive paradigms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidentiality, ethics, and informed consent.

Comments on the article Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model by Mary Alice Fisher (see record 2007-19520-001). In Fisher's excellent and much-needed article, she rightly implied that when discussing ethical dilemmas, psychologists may find themselves saying "consult an attorney" almost as often as they find themselves saying, "consult a fellow psychologist." Fisher's article was meant to turn the ship so to speak, by providing psychologists with a foundation for thinking clearly about confidentiality issues--a foundation that does not use legal arguments as primary building blocks. The above being said, we offer comments about four issues that we hope will add to the fine ideas expressed by Fisher. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Parenting in a broader context: A reply to Emery, Fincham, and Cummings (1992).

In their comment on the authors' (see record 1992-43921-001) discussion of the role of the family in child psychotherapy, R. E. Emery et al (see record 1993-14493-001) took issue with the emphasis on the mediational role of parenting practices and the importance of parenting as a focus of treatment. In response, it is emphasized that the aim was not to offer a comprehensive analysis of etiological factors in child psychopathology but rather to provide some practical research-based guidelines for child therapists. In addition, an attempt is made to clarify some areas of possible confusion, including the meaning of contextual variables, parenting as the appropriate focus of treatment, assumptions about what is meant by parenting, and differences in conceptualizations of intervention in family process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Nonempirical issues in psychology.

The general decline of radical empiricism has led to a renewed appreciation of the role of nonempirical contributions to the advancement of science. In psychology, this has meant the development of a theoretical wing comparable to the well-established theoretical traditions that exist in other scientific disciplines. Theoretical psychology is no longer the collection of vague generalities that once made up the traditional "systems and theories" course. It is an active subdiscipline with a well-articulated research program and a growing corpus of special methods and results. This article surveys the types of issues dealt with by theoretical psychologists and discusses the relation between their work and empirical research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Behavioral conceptions and applications of acceptability: Issues related to service delivery and research methodology": Errata.

Reports an error in "Behavioral conceptions and applications of acceptability: Issues related to service delivery and research methodology" by Tanya L. Eckert and John M. Hintze (School Psychology Quarterly, 2000[Sum], Vol 15[2], 123-148). In Table 1, the following errors appeared for the Colton and Sheridan (1998) entry: the information should be "3" (case scenarios), "naturalistic" (experimental design), "multiple baseline" (experimental methods), and "postassessment" (assessment interval). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2000-00107-002.) Reviews conceptual, methodological, and paradigmatic issues related to the acceptability of school-based practices from a behavioral orientation. First, the authors provide an overview of the acceptability construct from a behavioral perspective including (a) the historical development of the construct of acceptability, (b) the behavioral conceptualization and definition of the construct of acceptability, and (c) the prevailing conceptual models of acceptability. Second, the authors illustrate the methodology typically used when examining consumers' acceptability of school-based practices from a behavioral perspective using a cross-source, cross-method approach. A review of empirical studies examining the acceptability of consultation, assessment, and intervention practices using a variety of school-based consumers (e.g., school psychologists, parents, teachers, children) is conducted. The importance of examining the acceptability of school-based practices from this perspective is discussed. Third, the authors discuss important methodological issues that need to be considered in conducting acceptability research. Finally, the advantages and limitations of examining acceptability within a behavioral context are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Natural science and unnatural technology.

L. D. Smith responds to comments by P. A. Lamal (see record 1993-35767-001) and J. W. Kimball and W. L. Heward (see record 1993-35766-001) on Smith's (see record 1992-21952-001) article on the contemplative and technological orientations to science. Smith emphasizes that the article was not meant to suggest that technology be abandoned in favor of helpless passivity, but to urge that large-scale applications of behavioral technology be grounded in comprehensive models that afford a systematic understanding of the short- and long-term effects of behavioral interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Using the CPA code of ethics in I/O psychology.

Comments on S. Harvey's (see record 1994-43015-001) article on using the Canadian Psychological Association's (CPA's) Code of Ethics for psychologists in an organizational case. T. J. Kline disputes the necessity of developing specific standards for particular areas of practice because she contends that the CPA code is meant to serve as a guide and a conceptual device, not a body of law. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Behavioral conceptions and applications of acceptability: Issues related to service delivery and research methodology.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 16(1) of School Psychology Quarterly (see record 2007-17958-001). In Table 1, the following errors appeared for the Colton and Sheridan (1998) entry: the information should be "3" (case scenarios), "naturalistic" (experimental design), "multiple baseline" (experimental methods), and "postassessment" (assessment interval).] Reviews conceptual, methodological, and paradigmatic issues related to the acceptability of school-based practices from a behavioral orientation. First, the authors provide an overview of the acceptability construct from a behavioral perspective including (a) the historical development of the construct of acceptability, (b) the behavioral conceptualization and definition of the construct of acceptability, and (c) the prevailing conceptual models of acceptability. Second, the authors illustrate the methodology typically used when examining consumers' acceptability of school-based practices from a behavioral perspective using a cross-source, cross-method approach. A review of empirical studies examining the acceptability of consultation, assessment, and intervention practices using a variety of school-based consumers (e.g., school psychologists, parents, teachers, children) is conducted. The importance of examining the acceptability of school-based practices from this perspective is discussed. Third, the authors discuss important methodological issues that need to be considered in conducting acceptability research. Finally, the advantages and limitations of examining acceptability within a behavioral context are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.

Despite the widespread use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research, researchers often make questionable decisions when conducting these analyses. This article reviews the major design and analytical decisions that must be made when conducting a factor analysis and notes that each of these decisions has important consequences for the obtained results. Recommendations that have been made in the methodological literature are discussed. Analyses of 3 existing empirical data sets are used to illustrate how questionable decisions in conducting factor analyses can yield problematic results. The article presents a survey of 2 prominent journals that suggests that researchers routinely conduct analyses using such questionable methods. The implications of these practices for psychological research are discussed, and the reasons for current practices are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Bakan and behaviorism.

Comments on D. Bakan's article "Clinical Psychology and Logic" (see record 1958-01108-001). In the aforementioned article, that part of Bakan's argument which leads him to conclude that the method of science may not be relevant to the study of human behavior, in addition to containing certain errors of reasoning, seems to reflect an essential misunderstanding of what is meant by the method of science. In addition to rejecting the method of science solely on the untenable basis of its fallacious equation with what he takes to be the behaviorist position in psychology, Bakan adduces as evidence in further support of his criticism certain observations made by Tolman, Rogers, and Hebb regarding the methods they employ in arriving at what they hope to be fruitful hypotheses in their respective areas of endeavor. This evidence is, of course, entirely irrelevant to the issue of the applicability of the scientific method to psychology. The method of science does not prescribe, proscribe, or in any way legislate the procedure to be adopted in arriving at a fruitful hypothesis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

District nurses' knowledge and practice of wound assessment: 2

The first article in this series reported a study that examined the wound assessment practices of 20 district nurses in one healthcare trust. The most common method of assessing wounds was found to be a combination of observation and experience (Vol 7(7): 380-6). This article, the second part, describes the subsequent establishment of a forum to develop a research-based wound assessment tool. The issues surrounding changing practice are complex. It is clear that the process of basing practice on evidence is the responsibility of all those who are involved in healthcare. However, there is an urgent need to bring the practice, research and education agenda closer with organizational and managerial commitment to change. This work suggests that a short-term increase in resources will result in possible long-term benefits for patient care.