Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:11:38.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cost of crisis in clinical psychological science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Joshua B. Grubbs Open the ORCID record for Joshua B. Grubbs [Opens in a new window]
Joshua B. Grubbs*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH43403, USA. GrubbsJ@BGSU.edu; www.JoshuaGrubbsPhD.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yarkoni has argued that psychology is facing a generalizability crisis, but the real cost of this crisis is obscured by a focus on topics from psychology's most academic subfields. Psychology is also filled with applied subfields, and it is within those subfields – especially clinical science – where the cost of a generalizability crisis will be most severe.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e18
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, E. T., & Wilson, S. M. (2021). So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in (social) psychological theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 864–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dang, J., Barker, P., Baumert, A., Bentvelzen, M., Berkman, E., Buchholz, N., … Zinkernagel, A. (2021). A multilab replication of the ego depletion effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale (Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P. (1974). Cargo cult science. Engineering and Science, 37(7), 10–13.Google Scholar
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Hjemdal, O. (2005). Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 14(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friese, M., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Frankenbach, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2019). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., … Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B. M. (2018). Psychology in crisis. Macmillan International Higher Education.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2013). Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(7), 883–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundh, L.-G. (2019). The crisis in psychological science and the need for a person-oriented approach. In Valsiner, J. (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences (pp. 203–223). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1987). Theory and practice: Reflections of an academic clinician. In E. F. Bourg, R. J. Bent, J. E. Callan, N. F. Jones, J. McHolland, & G. Stricker (Eds.), Standards and evaluation in the education and training of professional psychologists: Knowledge, attitudes, and skills (pp. 7–23). Transcript Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakaluk, J. K., Williams, A. J., Kilshaw, R. E., & Rhyner, K. T. (2019). Evaluating the evidential value of empirically supported psychological treatments (ESTs): A meta-scientific review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, F. T. C., Nagy, G., Fleckenstein, J., Möller, J., & Retelsdorf, J. (2018). Same same, but different? Relations between facets of conscientiousness and grit. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. E., Stirman, S. W., & Chambless, D. L. (2012). A qualitative investigation of practicing psychologists’ attitudes toward research-informed practice: Implications for dissemination strategies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(2), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed