Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:47:05.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct replication and clinical psychological science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Scott O. Lilienfeld
Scott O. Lilienfeld*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322; School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia. [email protected]://psychology.emory.edu/home/people/faculty/lilienfeld-scott.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Zwaan et al. make a compelling case for the necessity of direct replication in psychological science. I build on their arguments by underscoring the necessity of direct implication for two domains of clinical psychological science: the evaluation of psychotherapy outcome and the construct validity of psychological measures.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Barrera, M. Jr. & Rosen, G. M. (1977) Detrimental effects of a self-reward contracting program on subjects' involvement in self-administered desensitization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45:1180–81.Google Scholar
Blakey, S. M. & Abramowitz, J. S. (2016) The effects of safety behaviors during exposure therapy for anxiety: Critical analysis from an inhibitory learning perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 49:1–15.Google Scholar
Chambless, D. L. & Ollendick, T. H. (2001) Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology 52:685–716.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. & Peracchio, L. (1990) Quasi-experimentation. In: Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1, 2nd edition, ed. Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M., pp. 491–576. Consulting Psychologists.Google Scholar
Coyne, J. C. (2016) Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology. BMC Psychology 4:28. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0134-3.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52:281–302.Google Scholar
Glick, A. R. (2015) The role of serotonin in impulsive aggression, suicide, and homicide in adolescents and adults: A literature review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 27:143–50.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2001) Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement 38:319–42.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O. & Pinto, M. D. (2015) Risky tests of etiological models in psychopathology research: The need for meta-methodology. Psychological Inquiry 26:253–58.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. S., Simons, D. J. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2016) Research preregistration 101. Association for Psychological Science Observer 29:14–17.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1968) Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin 70:151–59.Google Scholar
Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N. & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin 139, 548–605.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. M. (1993). Self-help or hype? Comments on psychology's failure to advance self-care. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 24:340–45.Google Scholar
Smith, G. T. McCarthy, D. M. & Anderson, K. G. (2000) On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment 12:102–11.Google Scholar
Stirman, S. W., Gamarra, J. M., Bartlett, B. A., Calloway, A. & Gutner, C. A. (2017) Empirical examinations of modifications and adaptations to evidence based psychotherapies: Methodologies, impact, and future directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 24:396–420.Google Scholar
Tackett, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Johnson, S. L, Krueger, R. F, Miller, J. D., Oltmans, T. F. & Shrout, P. E. (2017a) It's time to broaden the replicability conversation: Thoughts for and from clinical psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12(5):742–56.Google Scholar
Wood, J. M., Garb, H. N., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S. O. & Duke, M. C. (2015) A second look at the validity of widely used Rorschach indices: Comment on Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (2013). Psychological Bulletin 141:236–49.Google Scholar