Suppr超能文献

超越测量的效度:为何心理测量效度不足以支撑有效的心理治疗研究。

Validity Beyond Measurement: Why Psychometric Validity Is Insufficient for Valid Psychotherapy Research.

作者信息

Truijens Femke L, Cornelis Shana, Desmet Mattias, De Smet Melissa M, Meganck Reitske

机构信息

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 12;10:532. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00532. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

In psychotherapy research, "validity" is canonically understood as the capacity of a test to measure what is purported to measure. However, we argue that this psychometric understanding of validity prohibits working researchers from considering the validity of their research. Psychotherapy researchers often use measures with a different epistemic goal than test developers intended, for example when a depression symptom measure is used to indicate "treatment success" (cf. outcome measurement for evidence-based treatment). However, the validity of a measure does not cover the validity of its as operationalization of another target concept within a research procedure, nor the validity of its function toward an epistemic goal. In this paper, we discuss the importance of considering validity of the epistemic process beyond the validity of measures , based on an empirical case example from our psychotherapy study ("SCS", Cornelis et al., 2017). We discuss why the psychometric understanding of validity is insufficient in covering epistemic validity, and we evaluate to what extent the available terminology regarding validity of research is sufficient for working researchers to accurately consider the validity of their overall epistemic process. As psychotherapy research is meant to offer a sound evidence-base for clinical practice, we argue that it is vital that psychotherapy researchers are able to discuss the validity of the epistemic choices made to serve the clinical goal.

摘要

在心理治疗研究中,“效度”通常被理解为一种测试工具测量其宣称要测量内容的能力。然而,我们认为这种对效度的心理测量学理解使实际进行研究的人员无法考虑其研究的效度。心理治疗研究人员经常使用的测量工具具有与测试开发者预期不同的认知目标,例如当使用抑郁症状测量工具来指示“治疗成功”时(参见基于证据的治疗的结果测量)。然而,一种测量工具的效度并不涵盖其作为研究过程中另一个目标概念的操作化的效度,也不涵盖其针对认知目标的功能的效度。在本文中,我们基于我们的心理治疗研究(“SCS”,科内利斯等人,2017年)中的一个实证案例,讨论了考虑超越测量工具效度的认知过程效度的重要性。我们讨论了为什么对效度的心理测量学理解在涵盖认知效度方面是不够的,并且我们评估了关于研究效度的现有术语在多大程度上足以使实际进行研究的人员准确考虑其整个认知过程的效度。由于心理治疗研究旨在为临床实践提供可靠的证据基础,我们认为心理治疗研究人员能够讨论为实现临床目标而做出的认知选择的效度至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/214a/6423000/0fbc95ad62a2/fpsyg-10-00532-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验