Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The science-practice gap in psychology refers to the discrepancy between the availability of scientific evidence and its routine use in clinical practice (Cautin, 2011; Lilienfeld et al., 2013). This gap negatively affects the quality of psychotherapeutic services offered to the public and the credibility of professional psychology. Notable efforts have been made to bridge this gap, and several facilitators encouraging the use of science by professionals in psychology exist. However, there are also numerous attitudinal and practical barriers that hinder the ultimate integration of science and practice. Training opportunities are one of the important facilitators (e.g., Bearman, Wadkins, Bailin, & Doctoroff, 2015; Beck et al., 2014). However, little research has examined the quality of training opportunities that are offered to professionals in psychology post-graduation (i.e., continuing education (CE)). The first objective of the present thesis was thus to examine the extent to which CE workshops promote science-based practice. As such, Manuscript 1 presents a study in which we focus on the CE workshops offered and promoted by the psychology regulatory body in Quebec (i.e., l’Ordre des Psychologues du Québec (OPQ)). The results indicate that nearly half of the psychotherapies promoted in the OPQ-approved workshops are not yet supported with research. Not only does this potentially diminish the value of psychotherapy providers’ ongoing education, but this certainly contributes to the maintenance of the science-practice gap. The second objective of the present thesis was to develop a richer understanding of the attitudinal barriers maintaining the science-practice gap. In Manuscript 2, we were interested in how professionals in psychology perceive the value of science in psychotherapeutic practice. We conducted a first study, a scoping review, to gather the wide range of opinions and attitudes on this topic in the literature. We then conducted a second study, a survey, using the data from the scoping review. The survey focused on the Quebec population of psychotherapy providers. We were interested in determining if the opinions about the value of science in psychotherapy expressed in the literature were shared by the clinicians actively conducting psychotherapy in Quebec. Moreover, we wanted to examine if personal and professional characteristics (e.g., age, primary therapeutic approach, etc.) of respondents are related to their responses on the survey. Our results revealed important differences in how Quebec practitioners conceptualize the value of science in psychotherapy, compared to those writing the papers included in the scoping review. Moreover, this study identified ways in which science can become more valuable to psychotherapy, which are vital suggestions to be considered in solving the science-practice gap. Overall, this thesis examined the science-practice gap from different angles, while focusing especially on the Quebec population of psychotherapy providers and their regulatory body. The first manuscript reveals important issues in the quality of the CE trainings promoted by the OPQ. There is an opportunity to help bridge the science-practice gap if the OPQ considers revising the procedures currently in place to evaluate, accredit, and advertise these workshops. The second manuscript reveals how Quebec practitioners perceive the value of science in psychotherapy, how this value may be improved, and which personal and professional characteristics lead practitioners to rely more on science in their work. These findings allow us to make specific recommendations concerning the science-practice gap to the regulatory body responsible for these professionals. Implications for future research and the detailed recommendations based on our findings are discussed
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,090 | 0,132 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,130 |
| Communication savante | 0,043 | 0,049 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,017 | 0,040 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,004 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».