避免心理科学的下一次信誉危机:个性化诊断和干预的内部方法

Q2 Psychology
Journal for Person-Oriented Research Pub Date : 2022-01-07 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.17505/jpor.2021.23795
Julia Moeller
{"title":"避免心理科学的下一次信誉危机:个性化诊断和干预的内部方法","authors":"Julia Moeller","doi":"10.17505/jpor.2021.23795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Personalizing assessments, predictions, and treatments of individuals is currently a defining trend in psychological research and applied fields, including personalized learning, personalized medicine, and personalized advertisement. For instance, the recent pandemic has reminded parents and educators of how challenging yet crucial it is to get the right learning task to the right student at the right time. Increasingly, psychologists and social scientists are realizing that the between-person methods that we have long relied upon to describe, predict, and treat individuals may fail to live up to these tasks (e.g., Molenaar, 2004). Consequently, there is a risk of a credibility loss, possibly similar to the one seen during the replicability crisis (Ioannides, 2005), because we have only started to understand how many of the conclusions that we tend to draw based on between-person methods are based on a misunderstanding of what these methods can tell us and what they cannot. An imminent methodological revolution will likely lead to a change of even well-established psychological theories (Barbot et al., 2020). Fortunately, methodological solutions for personalized descriptions and predictions, such as many within-person analyses, are available and undergo rapid development, although they are not yet embraced in all areas of psychology, and some come with their own limitations. This article first discusses the extent of the theory-method gap, consisting of theories about within-person patterns being studied with between-person methods in psychology, and the potential loss of trust that might follow from this theory-method gap. Second, this article addresses advantages and limitations of available within-person methods. Third, this article discusses how within-person methods may help improving the individual descriptions and predictions that are needed in many applied fields that aim for tailored individual solutions, including personalized learning and personalized medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":36744,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Person-Oriented Research","volume":"7 1","pages":"53-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8826406/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Averting the Next Credibility Crisis in Psychological Science: Within-Person Methods for Personalized Diagnostics and Intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Moeller\",\"doi\":\"10.17505/jpor.2021.23795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Personalizing assessments, predictions, and treatments of individuals is currently a defining trend in psychological research and applied fields, including personalized learning, personalized medicine, and personalized advertisement. For instance, the recent pandemic has reminded parents and educators of how challenging yet crucial it is to get the right learning task to the right student at the right time. Increasingly, psychologists and social scientists are realizing that the between-person methods that we have long relied upon to describe, predict, and treat individuals may fail to live up to these tasks (e.g., Molenaar, 2004). Consequently, there is a risk of a credibility loss, possibly similar to the one seen during the replicability crisis (Ioannides, 2005), because we have only started to understand how many of the conclusions that we tend to draw based on between-person methods are based on a misunderstanding of what these methods can tell us and what they cannot. An imminent methodological revolution will likely lead to a change of even well-established psychological theories (Barbot et al., 2020). Fortunately, methodological solutions for personalized descriptions and predictions, such as many within-person analyses, are available and undergo rapid development, although they are not yet embraced in all areas of psychology, and some come with their own limitations. This article first discusses the extent of the theory-method gap, consisting of theories about within-person patterns being studied with between-person methods in psychology, and the potential loss of trust that might follow from this theory-method gap. Second, this article addresses advantages and limitations of available within-person methods. Third, this article discusses how within-person methods may help improving the individual descriptions and predictions that are needed in many applied fields that aim for tailored individual solutions, including personalized learning and personalized medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Person-Oriented Research\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"53-77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8826406/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Person-Oriented Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2021.23795\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Person-Oriented Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2021.23795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个性化评估、预测和治疗是目前心理学研究和应用领域的一个决定性趋势,包括个性化学习、个性化医疗和个性化广告。例如,最近的大流行提醒家长和教育工作者,在正确的时间将正确的学习任务交给正确的学生是多么具有挑战性,但也是至关重要的。越来越多的心理学家和社会科学家意识到,我们长期以来用来描述、预测和治疗个体的人与人之间的方法可能无法胜任这些任务(例如,Molenaar, 2004)。因此,存在信誉损失的风险,可能与可复制性危机期间所看到的类似(Ioannides, 2005),因为我们才刚刚开始了解,我们倾向于基于人与人之间的方法得出的结论中有多少是基于对这些方法可以告诉我们什么和不能告诉我们什么的误解。一场迫在眉睫的方法论革命可能会导致甚至是完善的心理学理论的变化(Barbot等人,2020)。幸运的是,个性化描述和预测的方法解决方案,如许多对人的分析,是可用的,并且正在迅速发展,尽管它们尚未被心理学的所有领域所接受,有些还存在自己的局限性。本文首先讨论了理论-方法差距的程度,包括心理学中使用人与人之间的方法研究的关于人内模式的理论,以及这种理论-方法差距可能导致的潜在信任损失。其次,本文讨论了可用的内部人员方法的优点和局限性。第三,本文讨论了面对面的方法如何有助于改善许多应用领域所需的个人描述和预测,这些领域旨在提供量身定制的个人解决方案,包括个性化学习和个性化医疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Averting the Next Credibility Crisis in Psychological Science: Within-Person Methods for Personalized Diagnostics and Intervention.

Personalizing assessments, predictions, and treatments of individuals is currently a defining trend in psychological research and applied fields, including personalized learning, personalized medicine, and personalized advertisement. For instance, the recent pandemic has reminded parents and educators of how challenging yet crucial it is to get the right learning task to the right student at the right time. Increasingly, psychologists and social scientists are realizing that the between-person methods that we have long relied upon to describe, predict, and treat individuals may fail to live up to these tasks (e.g., Molenaar, 2004). Consequently, there is a risk of a credibility loss, possibly similar to the one seen during the replicability crisis (Ioannides, 2005), because we have only started to understand how many of the conclusions that we tend to draw based on between-person methods are based on a misunderstanding of what these methods can tell us and what they cannot. An imminent methodological revolution will likely lead to a change of even well-established psychological theories (Barbot et al., 2020). Fortunately, methodological solutions for personalized descriptions and predictions, such as many within-person analyses, are available and undergo rapid development, although they are not yet embraced in all areas of psychology, and some come with their own limitations. This article first discusses the extent of the theory-method gap, consisting of theories about within-person patterns being studied with between-person methods in psychology, and the potential loss of trust that might follow from this theory-method gap. Second, this article addresses advantages and limitations of available within-person methods. Third, this article discusses how within-person methods may help improving the individual descriptions and predictions that are needed in many applied fields that aim for tailored individual solutions, including personalized learning and personalized medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Journal for Person-Oriented Research Psychology-Psychology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
23 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