Empirically Supported Complexity

Abstract— Over the last 10 years, evidence-based practice in psychology has become synonymous with a particular operationalization of it aimed at developing a list of empirically supported therapies. Although much has been learned since the emergence of the empirically supported therapies movement, its restrictive definition of evidence (excluding, for example, basic science as a source of evidence to be used by clinicians) is problematic, and the assumptions inherent in its nearly exclusive focus on brief, focal treatments for specific disorders are themselves not generally supported by the available data. Recent meta-analytic data support a more nuanced view of treatment efficacy than one that makes dichotomous judgments of empirically supported or unsupported, suggesting the need for a more refined concept of evidence-based practice in psychology.     

口腔颌面外科医疗实践中的过度医疗

通过对口腔颌面外科几种常见疾病的具体诊疗行为进行分析,从医疗技术本身探讨过度医疗的原因,认为评价一种医疗行为是否过度需要客观、全面、动态的标准,科学的认识和掌握疾病的客观规律并获得最优疗效的诊疗方案是避免过度医疗发生的可靠保证之一.     

医学院校教学医院临床实践教学的现状与对策

国家赋予医学院校教学医院救死扶伤和教书育人的两个职能,它在现行医疗体制改革的情况下与病人的维权发生了激烈的碰撞,临床实践教学出现了滑坡现象.在分析了医学院校教学医院临床实践教学现状的基础上,作者试从制定相应法规,保障临床实践教学;践行行医准则,尊重病人权利等几个方面进行了阐述,以期保证医学院校教学医院临床实践教学的质量.     

刻意训练在AOC电子竞技运动专长获得中的作用

以AOC电子竞技运动为研究领域,通过考察97名顶级高手对16种领域相关活动的评价以探索该领域的刻意训练活动,并进一步分析3种水平共271名被试进行刻意训练活动对其竞技水平的影响作用。结果发现,在AOC电子竞技运动领域存在3种刻意训练活动;不同水平被试进行刻意训练活动的时间量存在差异;刻意训练活动的时间量可有效预测竞技水平,而经验年份对竞技水平无预测作用;刻意训练活动的娱乐性因领域而异,且在不同水平被试间存在差异。     

时间性前瞻记忆的练习效应及其人格差异

实验1和实验2分别探究在低难度和高难度进行中任务条件下是否存在TBPM的练习效应及其人格差异,结果发现无论在何种情况下,实验组的前瞻记忆成绩均显著高于控制组,说明TBPM的练习效应稳定存在;A-B型人格类型与组别交互作用均不显著,说明A型和B型人格在TBPM的练习效应上没有差异;实验组在总的时间监控次数和后期时间监控次数上均高于控制组,时间差均低于控制组,说明练习通过提高时间监控有效性和总的注意投入量来提高前瞻记忆成绩。     

Influence of Motor Cortex Stimulation During Motor Training on Neuroplasticity as a Potential Therapeutic Intervention

Rehabilitation options to promote neuroplasticity may be enhanced when patients are engaged in motor practice during repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Twelve participants completed 3 separate sessions: motor practice, motor practice with rTMS, and rTMS only: motor practice consisted of 30 isometric contractions and subthreshold rTMS was 30, 3-s trains at 10 Hz. Assessments included the Box and Block Test (BBT), force steadiness (10% of the maximum voluntary contraction), and TMS (cortical excitability, intracortical inhibition, and intracortical facilitation). Participants significantly increased BBT scores following the combined condition. Force steadiness improved after all 3 conditions (p < .05). TMS outcomes depended on intervention condition with significant increases in facilitation following the motor practice plus rTMS condition. All interventions influenced motor control, yet are likely modulated differently when combining motor practice plus rTMS. These results help guide the clinical utility of rTMS as an intervention to influence motor control.     

Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity

We examined the effects of retrieval practice for students who varied in working memory capacity as a function of the lag between study of material and its initial test, whether or not feedback was given after the test, and the retention interval of the final test. We sought to determine whether a blend of these conditions exists that maximises benefits from retrieval practice for lower and higher working memory capacity students. College students learned general knowledge facts and then restudied the facts or were tested on them (with or without feedback) at lags of 0–9 intervening items. Final cued recall performance was better for tested items than for restudied items after both 10 minutes and 2 days, particularly for longer study–test lags. Furthermore, on the 2-day delayed test the benefits from retrieval practice with feedback were significantly greater for students with lower working memory capacity than for students with higher working memory capacity (r?=??.42). Retrieval practice may be an especially effective learning strategy for lower ability students.     

Community‐Based Learning and Critical Community Psychology Practice: Conducive and Corrosive Aspects

Community‐based learning (CBL) has been more recently introduced into some psychology programmes in the UK than in the USA, where it has existed for a number of decades in the form of ‘service learning’. CBL holds promise as a means of promoting and developing critical community psychology practice, but there are risks involved in its acritical adoption in the psychology curriculum. If associated power dynamics are not considered, CBL has the capacity to serve neoliberal interests and perpetuate, rather than challenge, oppressive social relations. This article examines ways in which CBL can be both conducive and corrosive to critical community psychology practice. Drawing on interdisciplinary literature, it explores ways in which students participating in CBL can be vulnerable to exploitation—both as victims and perpetrators—through collusion and cultural voyeurism. Consideration is given to ways of resisting institutional and other pressures to comply uncritically with the demands of the ‘employability agenda’. These include the importance of facilitated reflective processes in associated modules, to consider aspects of the interactions of people and systems. The article concludes that whilst CBL is inherently risky and involves discomfort for students, this enables development of a more informed consciousness where truly participatory work evolves towards greater social justice. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Rethinking the scientist-practitioner model: On the necessary complementarity of the natural and human science dimensions

Although the dominant scientist–practitioner model has considerable professional support, it remains the case that there is a fundamental mismatch between its conceptualisation of the practitioner as a laboratory scientist in a clinical setting and the actual requirements for good counselling practice. In particular, there is mismatch between the kind of knowledge generated in the laboratory setting and the epistemic requirements of the therapeutic situation; and between the (detached, impersonal) kind of decision-making engaged in by the laboratory scientist and the (interpersonal, interactive) kind engaged in by the practitioner. Moreover, being structural in character, these limitations cannot be rectified by piecemeal modifications of the standard model, such as those envisaged on the ‘local clinical scientist model’. Nor can the recent push towards ‘evidence-based practice’ suffice as a corrective because the core problem simply replicates itself on that level. Instead, since they derive from an unduly restrictive conception of what constitutes scientific inquiry, they require endorsement of the equal partnership of the human science template as a corrective. Moreover, far from compromising its scientific commitments, this actively facilitates rethinking the integration of science and practice in the service of the effective practice of care.