PSYCH HOMEWORK

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

I. 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.

II. 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 cost-

effectiveness; 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:

1) 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).

2) 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).

III. 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