PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Peebles

Publications and source records attributed to J Peebles.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

The future of psychotherapy outcome research: science or political rhetoric?

Although the relationship between research and clinical psychology has at times been conflicted, it has also been productive. Psychologists from both specialties have benefited from each others' work. The area of psychotherapy outcome research represents an important interface between the fields of clinical and research psychology. In an era of scarce resources and demands for accountability, there is pressure for researchers to justify the value of clinical practices. Recently, numerous articles have appeared recommending changes to the way psychotherapy research is conducted. The authors of these articles emphasize with urgency the importance of conducting and reporting research in a manner that will influence the decisions of policymakers and sanction funding for psychotherapy services. This article is an exploration of the impact of these recommendations, whose objective appears to be the promotion of psychological techniques for inclusion in clinical practice guidelines. It is argued that such recommendations may be in conflict with the philosophy and methods of science and may adversely affect public perception, perhaps leading psychologists to be seen as political lobbyists rather than clinicians and researchers.

Forecasting↗

Detecting socially desirable responding with the Personality Assessment Inventory: the Positive Impression Management scale and the Defensiveness Index.

In order to assess the effectiveness of the validity scales from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), 111 Introductory Psychology students completed the Positive Impression Management scale (PIM) and the Defensiveness Index (DEF) from the PAI along with the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984) under two instructional sets: 'forthright" and "fake good." Both PAI measures of socially desirable responding were superior to the BIDR scales at identifying protocols written under the fake good instructions. Contrary to Morey (1991), the results from this study support the use of a raw score of 18 as the cut-off on the PIM scale rather than 23. Using 18 as the criterion, 85.1% of cases were correctly classified. A cut-off score for the DEF (5) was derived and tested. Using this criterion resulted in the correct classification of 83.3% cases. A discriminant function that incorporated both the PAI indices produced no substantial improvement in classification accuracy.

Adult↗