MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1964005863 · doi:10.1037/a0025364

The power of multiple methods and evidence sources: Raising the profile of Canadian counselling psychology research.

2011· article· en· W1964005863 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Bryan Hiebert, José F. Domene, Marla J. Buchanan

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCounseling Practices and Supervision
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyRaising (metalworking)Power (physics)Applied psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In counselling psychology, research and practice are viewed as mutually informative, and Canadian counselling psychologists conduct research in a wide range of areas, utilizing a wide range of research methods. However, there are few Canadian publications that give prominence to counselling psychology scholarly work. Over the past decade, two trends have become more prominent in the practice of counselling psychology: evidence-based practice and outcome-focused intervention. Traditionally, empirical evidence for the efficacy of practice interventions has come from randomized controlled trials. This fails to reflect the diversity of methods and practice that Canadian counselling psychologists utilize. To address this discrepancy, in this article we provide some alternate ways for obtaining empirical support for the predictive efficacy of counselling interventions. We conclude by addressing some challenges currently facing counselling psychologists in Canada (i.e., publication venues, funding for research, the connection between research and practice, preparation of students) and describing some ways for raising the profile of counselling psychology research and practice in Canada. Keywords: Canadian counselling psychology research, evidence-based practice, research challenges, multiple methods research Research and practice are viewed as mutually informative and counselling psychologists conduct research in a wide range of areas, including those of the counselling relationship and other psychotherapeutic processes, the multicultural dimensions of psychology, and the roles of work and mental health in optimal functioning. Canadian counselling psychologists are especially concerned with culturally appropriate methods suitable for investigating both ernie and etic perspectives on human behaviour, and promote the use of research methods drawn from diverse epistemological perspectives, including innovative developments in qualitative and quantitative research. (Bedi et al., 20 11, p. 130) The preceding quotation, drawn from the comprehensive definition of counselling psychology adopted by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) in 2009, encapsulates the current state of scholarly practice in Canada, and hints at several issues that are confronting Canadian counselling psychology researchers today. In this article, we provide an in-depth discussion of three of these issues: (a) the diversity of methodologies that are employed by Canadian counselling psychology researchers, (b) the importance of connecting research and practice when considering the meaning of research evidence in a counselling psychology perspective, and (c) challenges associated with raising the profile of counselling psychology in Canada. Directions that we believe to be important for the discipline to pursue in the future are also discussed. First, however, it is important to obtain an understanding of the current state of research in our discipline. Canadian counselling psychologists have been engaged in conducting high quality research even before counselling psychology was established as a section within the Canadian Psychological Association 25 years ago. Counselling psychologists in Canada have contributed substantially to the literature on a wide range of subjects related to human development, psychological functioning, and practice, and have gained international renown in numerous areas, including research on career development (e.g., Cochran, 1997; Young et al, 2010), counselling processes (e.g., Bedi & Horvath, 2004; Horvath, & Luborsky, 1993), and immigration/ cultural contexts (e.g., Arthur & McMahon, 2005; McCormick, 1998; Samuda & Lewis, 1999). Moreover, the values that guide the definition of counselling psychology are evident in the research directions undertaken by counselling psychologists in Canada. Although researchers are engaged in examining the full range of phenomena that could be considered within the purview of counselling psychology, previous authors have identified several areas of particular strength for Canadian counselling psychology research. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,639
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,344
Tête enseignante GPT0,469
Écart entre enseignants0,125 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetCounseling Practices and SupervisionTravaux en français237 207