重新思考是什么让综合心理干预研究有用

IF 16.8 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Nature reviews psychology Pub Date : 2023-07-26 DOI:10.1038/s44159-023-00213-9
John K. Sakaluk, Carm De Santis, Robyn Kilshaw, Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Cassandra M. Brandes, Cassandra L. Boness, Yevgeny Botanov, Alexander J. Williams, Dennis C. Wendt, Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces, Jessica Schleider, Don van Ravenzwaaij
{"title":"重新思考是什么让综合心理干预研究有用","authors":"John K. Sakaluk, Carm De Santis, Robyn Kilshaw, Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Cassandra M. Brandes, Cassandra L. Boness, Yevgeny Botanov, Alexander J. Williams, Dennis C. Wendt, Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces, Jessica Schleider, Don van Ravenzwaaij","doi":"10.1038/s44159-023-00213-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Syntheses of literature on psychological interventions have defined the state of knowledge and helped to identify evidence-based practices for researchers, practitioners, educators and policymakers. Nevertheless, it is complicated to appraise the usefulness of syntheses owing to long-standing methodological issues and the rapid rate of research production. In this Perspective, we examine how syntheses of psychological interventions could be more useful. We argue that syntheses should move beyond the myopic lens of intervention impact based on a one-time, contested selection of literature and comprehensible only to intensively trained readers. Rather, syntheses should become ‘living’ documents that integrate data on intervention impact, consistency, research credibility and sampling inclusivity, all of which must then be presented in a modular way that is also accessible to people of limited expertise. Although existing resources make pursuit of this goal possible, reaching it will require a dramatic change in the ways in which psychologists collaborate and in which syntheses are conducted, disseminated and institutionally supported. Traditional syntheses are limited by methodological issues and the rapid rate of research production. In this Perspective, Sakaluk et al. propose a model for more useful syntheses that integrate data on impact, consistency, research credibility and sampling inclusivity and present these data in a modular and accessible way.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"2 9","pages":"569-583"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconsidering what makes syntheses of psychological intervention studies useful\",\"authors\":\"John K. Sakaluk, Carm De Santis, Robyn Kilshaw, Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Cassandra M. Brandes, Cassandra L. Boness, Yevgeny Botanov, Alexander J. Williams, Dennis C. Wendt, Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces, Jessica Schleider, Don van Ravenzwaaij\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s44159-023-00213-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Syntheses of literature on psychological interventions have defined the state of knowledge and helped to identify evidence-based practices for researchers, practitioners, educators and policymakers. Nevertheless, it is complicated to appraise the usefulness of syntheses owing to long-standing methodological issues and the rapid rate of research production. In this Perspective, we examine how syntheses of psychological interventions could be more useful. We argue that syntheses should move beyond the myopic lens of intervention impact based on a one-time, contested selection of literature and comprehensible only to intensively trained readers. Rather, syntheses should become ‘living’ documents that integrate data on intervention impact, consistency, research credibility and sampling inclusivity, all of which must then be presented in a modular way that is also accessible to people of limited expertise. Although existing resources make pursuit of this goal possible, reaching it will require a dramatic change in the ways in which psychologists collaborate and in which syntheses are conducted, disseminated and institutionally supported. Traditional syntheses are limited by methodological issues and the rapid rate of research production. In this Perspective, Sakaluk et al. propose a model for more useful syntheses that integrate data on impact, consistency, research credibility and sampling inclusivity and present these data in a modular and accessible way.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature reviews psychology\",\"volume\":\"2 9\",\"pages\":\"569-583\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature reviews psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-023-00213-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature reviews psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-023-00213-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有关心理干预的文献综述确定了知识的现状,并帮助研究人员、从业人员、教育工作者和政策制定者确定循证实践。然而,由于长期存在的方法论问题和研究成果的迅猛发展,评估综述的实用性非常复杂。在本《视角》中,我们将探讨如何使心理干预的综述更加有用。我们认为,综述应该超越以一次性、有争议的文献选择为基础的干预影响的近视视角,而且只有受过强化训练的读者才能理解。相反,综述应该成为 "活 "的文件,整合干预效果、一致性、研究可信度和抽样包容性等方面的数据,然后必须以模块化的方式呈现所有这些数据,让专业知识有限的人也能读懂。尽管现有的资源使实现这一目标成为可能,但要达到这一目标,心理学家的合作方式以及综合研究的开展、传播和机构支持方式都必须发生巨大的变化。传统的综合研究受到方法论问题和快速研究成果的限制。在本《视角》中,Sakaluk 等人提出了一个更有用的综述模型,该模型整合了有关影响、一致性、研究可信度和抽样包容性的数据,并以模块化和可访问的方式呈现这些数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reconsidering what makes syntheses of psychological intervention studies useful
Syntheses of literature on psychological interventions have defined the state of knowledge and helped to identify evidence-based practices for researchers, practitioners, educators and policymakers. Nevertheless, it is complicated to appraise the usefulness of syntheses owing to long-standing methodological issues and the rapid rate of research production. In this Perspective, we examine how syntheses of psychological interventions could be more useful. We argue that syntheses should move beyond the myopic lens of intervention impact based on a one-time, contested selection of literature and comprehensible only to intensively trained readers. Rather, syntheses should become ‘living’ documents that integrate data on intervention impact, consistency, research credibility and sampling inclusivity, all of which must then be presented in a modular way that is also accessible to people of limited expertise. Although existing resources make pursuit of this goal possible, reaching it will require a dramatic change in the ways in which psychologists collaborate and in which syntheses are conducted, disseminated and institutionally supported. Traditional syntheses are limited by methodological issues and the rapid rate of research production. In this Perspective, Sakaluk et al. propose a model for more useful syntheses that integrate data on impact, consistency, research credibility and sampling inclusivity and present these data in a modular and accessible way.
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
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From the lab to a career in the video game industry Modelling game-theoretic predictions in social interactions Pre-stimulus neural activity and visual perception in schizophrenia Event perception and event memory in real-world experience Slow down and be critical before using early warning signals in psychopathology
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1