UNIVERSIDAD INTERAMERICANA DE PUERTO RICO
RECINTO METROPOLITANO
DEPARTAMENTO DE EDUCACIÓN Y PROFESIONES DE LA CONDUCTA
PROGRAMA DE PSICOLOGÍA
PROF. NOÉ GARCÍA
PSYCH 4971
Instructions for the first (1st) essay
- General Instructions
Read the instructions carefully so that you can properly write the first assigned essay of the first unit. The due date for this essay is APRIL/16/2019. The text should be handed in, printed and stapled, following a Microsoft Word format, a letter size twelve (12) and a spacing of one and a half (1.5) between sentences (or line spacing in the paragraph options). The extension of the work should not be less than three (3) pages or greater than five (5) pages of content (not title page or cover of any kind is required).
At the end of your essay you will list the References used (for more information see the text I sent regarding the instructions for writing an essay for this class). Plagiarism will not be tolerated. The written essay should be a product that reflects your understanding and interpretation (substantiated with arguments, evidence and reasoning, expressed in a clear, consistent, and accurate matter) of the assigned readings and discussions in class. Do not use Internet sources and limit yourself to the assigned texts, the discussion in class and your own argumentative capabilities. The test has a total value of twenty-five (25) points.
- Specific Instructions
The following is a brief recap (recapitulation) on our discussion during the first unit, which should set the premises and main arguments to discuss in your essay. In this first unit we have discussed the proposals put forward by Evidence Based Practice (EBP), and its derivatives, alongside the APA’s take and proposals for its implementations in Psychology. The APA, specially the Division 12 (the Clinical Psychology division), have argued for the need for a more systematic and transparent application of the “best evidence” when it comes to evaluating which are the “best treatments” (psychotherapies). In many ways this corresponds with a certain ideal regarding how the scientific community applies and informs the results from empirical research. Many psychologists feel that there are still some limits and even limitations to this proposal regarding EBP. We have seen that even those psychologists that defend the need for “better evidence”, argue that: 1) there is bias regarding the publication of studies and the use of certain methodologies, selections processes and analysis (valued as better suited to be regarded as “evidence”); 2) there is a gap between efficacy, effectiveness and costeffectiveness; 3) similarly there is a gap between clinical practice and research; and 4) a lot of misconceptions and resistance regarding what EBP actually entails. Taking all of this into consideration, elaborate an essay in which you:
Discuss the limits (“strenghts” and “weaknesses” if you will) of EBP’s application to Psychology, taking into consideration some of the problems outlined, and the possibilities of rethinking how Psychology can account for its processes, outcomes and validity. In other words, discuss how can we rethink the ways in which we view and analyze evidence in Psychology.
When you elaborate your essay also take into consideration the following:
- You need to use at least two (2) of the assigned and discussed(suggested texts don’t count in this) texts in class. Be precise when presenting an author’s (or a group of author’s) critiques. In this case it is recommended to at least pick one (1) text among the discussions done in: the
APA Presidental Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006), Tolin et al (2015), Lilienfeld at al (2013), Ferguson & Heene (2012) or Wampold et al (2016).
- Once you have discuss the author’s critiques and arguments, it is also relevant that you present your own critiques and thought on the matter, as cogent and elaborated as possible (beyond a simple appreciative opinion, always justify your answers).
- References
Assigned
Garg, A.X., Hackam, D., & Tonelli, M.(2008). Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When one study is just not enough. Clinical Journal American Society Nephrology: 253-260.
Sánchez-Meca, J. & Marín-Martínez, F. (2010). Meta-analysis in Psychological Research.
International Journal of Psychological Research 3(1): 150-162.
APA Publications & Communications Board (2008). Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologists 63 (9): 839-851. APA Presidental Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006). Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. American Psychologists 61 (4): 271-285.
Tolin, D.F., Mckay, D., Forman, E.M., Klonsky, E.D., & Thombs, B.D. (2015). Empirically Supported Treatment: Recommendations for a New Model. Clinical Psychology Science Practice: 1-22. 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: 883-900
Ferguson, C. & Heene, M. (2012). A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories: Publication Bias and Psychological Science’s Aversion to the Null. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6):555-
561.
Schtulman, A. (2013). Epistemic similarities between student’s scientific and supernatural beliefs. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (1); 199-212.
Wampold, B.E., et al (2016). In pursuit of truth: A critical examination of meta-analyses of
cognitive behavior therapy. Psychotherapy Research 27(1): 14-32
Leichsernring, F. & Rabung, S. (2011). Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in complex mental disorders: update of a meta-analysis. British Journal Psychiatry 199:15-22