A Critical Reconstruction of Evidence-based Practice in Psychology : Evidence and Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice in psychology is the dominant regulatory principle in clinical psychology, defining psychological knowledge and its application. This book provides a critical analysis and a reconstruction of the policy statement focusing on epistemology and ethics. The book shows the ideological and historical background for the development of evidence-based practice in psychology. It covers the main conceptual and empirical arguments leading to this transition including philosophy and evidence-based medicine. The book goes on to show some of the defects of evidence-based practice in psychology: it misconstrues psychological knowledge; reduces the number of ethical resources available to regulate psychological practices; does not fulfil its ambitions of being a tripartite concept; and undertheorises the issue of integration. The closing chapters provide a constructive critique, preserving the valuable aspects of evidence-based practice in psychology while developing it to make it function adequately. In that sense, the book aims to change the way psychological knowledge is understood and used in practice. This text will be engaging and thought-provoking for anyone using psychological knowledge with patients or clients. It will provide analytic resources to understand psychology better and facilitate the application of psychological knowledge in various settings. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com,has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".