Progress in clinical psychology: Is there any?

Abstract

This article addresses the criticisms that clinical psychology research is characterized by (a) generally disappointing results, (b) unreplicability, and (c) poor cumulation. Results are found to be quite encouraging when we (a) distinguish effect size estimation from significance testing, (b) clarify the interpretation of nonsignificant results, and (c) evaluate the practical importance of obtained effect sizes. Furthermore, our research is found to be considerably more replicable when we clarify the definition of successful replication and employ various metrics of the success of replication. Finally, problems of poor cumulation are addressed by a discussion of the evaluations (negative and positive) of meta-analysis and how clinical researchers, in particular, can employ meta-analytic procedures.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 75 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.