Psychological management intervention guidelines for rape survivors with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): A brief exploratory systematic literature review

This exploratory systematic literature review aimed to characterise the current evidence on psychological management intervention guidelines for use with rape survivors with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. For the data searches we accessed the following electronic databases: Google Scholar, Science Direct, EBSCOhost, and PsychInfo. We utilised search terms with variations of the following key words: psychological management guidelines of PTSD*, rape survivors*. Inclusion criteria were guidelines for rape survivors with PTSD that consider referral, treatment, and preventive and health promotion in an international setting. We excluded guidelines that did not address PTSD resulting from rape in an international setting. We employed a narrative synthesis data analysis approach to integrate the evidence from across studies. Findings suggest prevalent guidelines for rape survivors with PTSD focus on cognitive behavioural therapy and other psychological management interventions in highly specialised areas and Primary Health Care (PHC) settings in international countries, but not in other countries such as South Africa. Emerging guidelines are needed for PTSD psychological management interventions in rape care clinics situated in South Africa.     

“Phobie à deux” and other reasons why clinicians do not apply exposure with response prevention in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder

Meta-analyses suggest that exposure with response prevention (ERP) is the most efficacious treatment for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and treatment guidelines for the disorder accordingly recommend ERP. Despite this, many therapists, including those with a cognitive-behavioral therapeutic background, do not perform ERP in patients with OCD. The present study aimed to elucidate the reasons why. German therapists (N = 216) completed an anonymous online survey, the newly developed Reasons for Not Performing Exposure in OCD Scale (REPEX), that inquired whether, to what extent, and how they perform ERP in the treatment of OCD. We also asked their reasons for not applying ERP in the past. Most therapists considered ERP an efficient treatment for OCD. Marked differences emerged between physicians and psychologists, however. The former used exposure less often and for a shorter period, preferred in sensu to in vivo exposure, and conducted exposure less often in the personal environment of the patient than did psychologists. Both groups were familiar with clinical guidelines to a similar extent. A factor analysis of the REPEX scale revealed five factors. Patient lack of motivation, preference for exposure to be self-help as well as alleged organizational difficulties were endorsed most often. The latter was correlated with the age of the therapist and was far more often affirmed by physicians. Fear of side effects was named by a subgroup of clinicians; in the context of patient ambivalence, this may foster “phobie à deux”. Unlike prior research, lack of expertise was rarely identified as a reason not to use ERP. Recommendations for improving adherence to guidelines are discussed.     

National Human Research Ethics: A Preliminary Comparative Case Study of Germany,Great Britain,Romania, and Sweden

Although international research is increasing in volume and importance, there remains a dearth of knowledge on similarities and differences in “national human research ethics” (NHREs), that is, national ethical guidelines (NEGs), Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and research stakeholder’ ethical attitudes and behaviors (EABs). We begin to address this situation by reporting upon our experiences in conducting a multinational study into the mental health of children who had a parent/carer in prison. The study was conducted in 4 countries: Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Data on NHREs were gathered via a questionnaire survey, two ethics-related seminars, and ongoing contact between members of the research consortium. There was correspondence but even more so divergence between countries in the availability of NEGs and IRBs and in researcher’ EABs. Differences in NHREs have implications particularly in terms of harmonization but also for ethical philosophy and practice and for research integrity.     

Multilevel Factor Analysis: Reporting Guidelines and a Review of Reporting Practices

We provide reporting guidelines for multilevel factor analysis (MFA) and use these guidelines to systematically review 72 MFA applications in journals across a range of disciplines (e.g., education, health/nursing, management, and psychology) published between 1994 and 2014. Results are organized in terms of the (a) characteristics of the MFA application (e.g., construct measured), (b) purpose (e.g., measurement validation), (c) data source (e.g., number of cases at Level 1 and Level 2), (d) statistical approach (e.g., maximum likelihood), and (e) results reported (e.g., intraclass correlations for indicators and latent variables, standardized factor loadings, fit indices). Results from this review have implications for applied researchers interested in expanding their approaches to psychometric analyses and construct validation within a multilevel framework and for methodologists using Monte Carlo methods to explore technical and methodological issues grounded in realistic research design conditions.     

WHY NO GUIDELINES FOR BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION?

This paper reviews the guidelines for behavioral programs published by the National Association of Retarded Children. The review discusses a number of reasons why guidelines should not be enunciated for behavior modification, e.g., the procedures of behavior modification appear to be no more or less subject to abuse and no more or less in need of ethical regulation than intervention procedures derived from any other set of principles and called by other terms. The review recommends alternative methods for protecting the rights of clients who participate in behavioral programs. Specifically, behavioral clinicians, like other therapists, should be governed by the ethics codes of their professions; also, the ethics of all intervention programs should be evaluated in terms of a number of critical issues.     

Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct

In response to a series of allegations of scientific misconduct in the 1980’s, a number of scientific societies, national agencies, and academic institutions, including Harvard Medical School, devised guidelines to increase awareness of optimal scientific practices and to attempt to prevent as many episodes of misconduct as possible. The chief argument for adopting guidelines is to promote good science. There is no evidence that well-crafted guidelines have had any detrimental effect on creativity since they focus on design of research studies, documentation of research findings, assignment of credit through authorship, data management and supervision of trainees, not on the origin and evolution of ideas. This paper addresses a spectrum of causes of scientific misconduct or unacceptable scientific behavior and couples these with estimates of the potential for prevention if guidelines for scientific investigation are adopted. The conclusion is that clear and understandable guidelines should help to reduce the chance that flawed research will escape from our institutions. However, they cannot be relied upon alone to prevent all instances of scientific misconduct and should be regarded rather as one means of bolstering the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise.     

Deux cadres méthodo-épistémologiques du testing structurant la construction et l’adaptation de tests,références incontournables mais,hélas,largement ignorées. Illustration à partir de cinq revues françaises de psychologie

The purpose of this article is to present two current methodo-epistemological frameworks for test and testing procedures, namely the Standards for Education and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014), and the ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (2017). These two frameworks were designed to serve as “universal” references shaping the construction and adaptation of psychological tests and scales. However, a review of articles published in five French journals shows that these two frameworks are largely ignored. Their dissemination could improve good practices in construction and cross-cultural adaptation of psychological tests and scales.     

Psychological evidence in the courtroom: critical reflections on the general acceptance standard

The increasing ties between psychology and law have familiarized psychologists with the standards by which law admits scientific evidence into the courtroom. In the USA, these include the general acceptance standard and the Daubert guidelines and, in the UK, the Turner Rule. However, the psychological literature has largely failed to make clear the degree of legal debate that exists concerning the clarity and effectiveness of such standards. This paper will focus on the general acceptance standard, examining key problems of this standard and placing them in a specifically psychological context. Such consideration is important precisely because the standard has become so well known within the psychological literature and because insufficient attention has been given to the way in which it operates implicitly within jurisdictions outside the USA. The authors argue that it is the responsibility of psychologists to become more involved in the debate concerning admissibility standards, given the credibility and authority that law accords to psychology when admitting it into the courtroom. In particular, psychologists need to become more self-reflective about their role in creating and maintaining such standards. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Describing our “humanness”: Can genetic science alter what it means to be “human”?

Over the past several decades, geneticists have succeeded in identifying the genetic mutations associated with disease. New strategies for treatment, including gene transfer and gene therapy, are under development. Although genetic science has been welcomed for its potential to predict and treat disease, interventions may become ethically objectionable if they threaten to alter characteristics that are distinctively human. Before we can determine whether or not a genetic technique carries this risk, we must clarify what it means to be “human”. This paper inquires how “humanness” has been defined within various academic fields. The views of several legal theoreists, scientists, bioethicists, psychologists, philosophers and anthropologists whose works seem to best reflect how “humanness” is understood in their respective fields of study are considered. Our survey attempts to chart a path for a more detailed study on the meaning of “humanness” in the future. We assess four traits commonly identified in the literature as defining what it means to be human: cognition, biological or physiological composition, social interaction with other “human” beings, and spirituality. The nature of the relationship between these characteristics, in our view, is symbiotic: genetic intervention which alters one of them could have repercussions on one or more of the others. In conclusion, we offer guidance to those participating in genetic research and treatment regarding the parameters within which they may proceed without threatening the preservation of what is distinctively human.