Research into evidence-based psychological interventions needs a stronger focus on replicability

Q2 Psychology
Helen Niemeyer, Christine Knaevelsrud, Robbie C. M. van Aert, Thomas Ehring
{"title":"Research into evidence-based psychological interventions needs a stronger focus on replicability","authors":"Helen Niemeyer, Christine Knaevelsrud, Robbie C. M. van Aert, Thomas Ehring","doi":"10.32872/cpe.9997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<sec xmlns=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1\"> <title>Background</title> It is a precondition for evidence-based practice that research is replicable in a wide variety of clinical settings. Current standards for identifying evidence-based psychological interventions and making recommendations for clinical practice in clinical guidelines include criteria that are relevant for replicability, but a better understanding as well refined definitions of replicability are needed enabling empirical research on this topic. Recent advances on this issue were made in the wider field of psychology and in other disciplines, which offers the opportunity to define and potentially increase replicability also in research on psychological interventions. </sec> <sec xmlns=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1\"> <title>Method</title> This article proposes a research strategy for assessing, understanding, and improving replicability in research on psychological interventions. </sec> <sec xmlns=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1\"> <title>Results/Conclusion</title> First, we establish a replication taxonomy ranging from direct to conceptual replication adapted to the field of research on clinical interventions, propose study characteristics that increase the trustworthiness of results, and define statistical criteria for successful replication with respect to the quantitative outcomes of the original and replication studies. Second, we propose how to establish such standards for future research, i.e., in order to design future replication studies for psychological interventions as well as to apply them when investigating which factors are causing the (non-)replicability of findings in the current literature. </sec>","PeriodicalId":34029,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology in Europe","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.9997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background It is a precondition for evidence-based practice that research is replicable in a wide variety of clinical settings. Current standards for identifying evidence-based psychological interventions and making recommendations for clinical practice in clinical guidelines include criteria that are relevant for replicability, but a better understanding as well refined definitions of replicability are needed enabling empirical research on this topic. Recent advances on this issue were made in the wider field of psychology and in other disciplines, which offers the opportunity to define and potentially increase replicability also in research on psychological interventions. Method This article proposes a research strategy for assessing, understanding, and improving replicability in research on psychological interventions. Results/Conclusion First, we establish a replication taxonomy ranging from direct to conceptual replication adapted to the field of research on clinical interventions, propose study characteristics that increase the trustworthiness of results, and define statistical criteria for successful replication with respect to the quantitative outcomes of the original and replication studies. Second, we propose how to establish such standards for future research, i.e., in order to design future replication studies for psychological interventions as well as to apply them when investigating which factors are causing the (non-)replicability of findings in the current literature.
基于证据的心理干预研究需要更加关注可复制性
以证据为基础的实践的先决条件是研究在各种临床环境中是可复制的。目前用于确定基于证据的心理干预措施和在临床指南中为临床实践提出建议的标准包括与可复制性相关的标准,但需要更好地理解和细化可复制性的定义,以便对这一主题进行实证研究。最近在这个问题上的进展是在更广泛的心理学领域和其他学科中取得的,这为定义和潜在地增加心理干预研究的可复制性提供了机会。方法提出一种评估、理解和提高心理干预研究可复制性的研究策略。首先,我们建立了一个适用于临床干预研究领域的复制分类,范围从直接复制到概念复制,提出了增加结果可信度的研究特征,并根据原始研究和复制研究的定量结果定义了成功复制的统计标准。其次,我们提出了如何为未来的研究建立这样的标准,即为了设计未来的心理干预的重复性研究,以及在调查哪些因素导致了当前文献中发现的(非)可重复性时应用这些标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology in Europe
Clinical Psychology in Europe Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信