Week 6 forum post responses

In need of a 250 word response/discussion to each of the following forum posts. Agreement/disagreement/and/or continuing the discussion.

Original forum discussion/topic post is as follows:

This week we will discuss one of the requirements of the course Integrative Project Literature Review, that only evidence-based articles that report on experiments conducted by the article authors be used. This is a requirement of many an MA in Psych paper assignment. Why do you think that is the case? Think from the perspective of psychology as both a profession and an academic discipline. What is gained by focusing on evidence-based experimental articles? What may be lost as a result of this requirement?

Forum post response #1

Why do you think that is the case? Think from the perspective of psychology as both a profession and an academic discipline.

I think that it is important that only evidence-based articles that report on experiments conducted by the article authors is a requirement to use in our paper because it shows that the person who is conducting the research can actually be a reliable source rather than just the author who is writing about it. In my annotated bibliography review, it was brought to my attention that results cannot find something, but a study can, which eventually made sense to me after I pondered on it for a few errors on my returned document. My revisions needed for the paper opened my eyes, unfortunately too later after submitting the paper, but to see that a person is not finding the data or results, the study being conducted actually is. It seems that an evidence-based article is a more precise and professional way to conduct research rather than gathering non reliable data on a topic that isn’t going to hold for a strong argument in a future paper.

What is gained by focusing on evidence-based experimental articles?

I think that what is gained is credible research that is done rather than just simply conducting studies without a valid reasoning for them. If a study was done 10 years ago, and one is done in the current day, it is more reliable to be able to compare the results between these two studies rather than just an article or study that has no evidence-based credit. It also helps to know that you are using and comparing two different studies that are legitimate resources and conducted based on only facts rather than just information that is found from unreliable sources or studies. It also gives a variety of opinions from different studies that aren’t generally focused on one mindset, which can allow for a better overall understanding of what is being researched.

What may be lost as a result of this requirement?

In my opinion I felt that I found a lot of studies that were relevant to my topic, however they were not evidence based. It began to get frustrating whenever I was finding the articles that were not able to be used, however it actually only helps me to write a paper with the most credible resources when I comes to submitting my final paper.

Forum post response #2

Why do you think that only evidence-based articles that report on experiments conducted by the article authors be used is the case? Think from the perspective of psychology as both a profession and an academic discipline.

I feel that we should use only evidence-based articles that report on experiments because we are seeking to gain new information about the phenomenon we are researching. For example, I am writing about PTSD in my paper. At this point in our academic journey, we should all be well versed on textbook knowledge regarding PTSD. However, we aren’t reporting on what has been known for years, we are including new investigations of our topics, as well as thinking about suggestions to make for future research. One of my subtopics is neural substrates of PTSD. We’ve long known the amygdala is an obvious epicenter of PTSD, with it being at the center of emotion regulation. However, if we want to see how a person with PTSD responds to certain stimuli, we need a well-designed experiment, and in the case of looking at neural circuitry, we need functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

One can locate and read a literature review about everything the profession already knows about a subject, but those well researched literature reviews are going to be missing research that has been published since they were written and submitted it to the peer review process. The literature is always evolving so looking at new evidence-based articles helps academics and practicing professionals stay up to date. Literature reviews may also have had an agenda in their inclusion process. Using single-study articles in our papers limited to the last few years adds newly investigated knowledge into our work. We also had to exclude meta-analysis, which has only been required in one or two of my previous courses. Meta-analysis can provide rich information about a topic and show trends across multiple studies. However, the exclusion parameters authors of meta-analyses decide on may skew the findings of the analysis, as can inclusion of a lot of small studies.

What is gained by focusing on evidence-based experimental articles?

Focusing on evidence-based articles gives specific information about what occurs when variables of a phenomenon are measured and/or manipulated. Experiments allow for investigation of hypotheses. Experiments are often conducted to see if previous research can be replicated, although here in social science it is often difficult to replicate results due to the magnitude of confounding factors in the human experience. Although reading how different authors reach different findings when trying to replicate something is important. It also informs continuous investigations into the topic, stimulating new research as researchers try to assess if any flaws in methodology led to the differing conclusions.

For the profession, research guides policy implementation and helps professionals decide what therapies or interventions are appropriate for different populations. Evidence-based experiments help form new theories. New theories guide new interventions in clinical practice. Those of us that are moving on to doctoral studies will be required to develop new research questions and conduct experimental investigations into these questions. By staying up to date with the published literature we will spot areas where there are gaps in the literature and help us to formulate the research we want to conduct.

What may be lost as a result of this requirement?

A broader examination of the topic might be lost. I’m not sure I mind this in the context of our literature review assignment. However, there were times in my research process that despite having “studies” selected in my ProQuest search, I was still shown a few literature reviews. When I was in the process of trying to find research supporting the use of dopamine as an adjunct to therapy there weren’t very many human studies, although there were a few well written literature reviews on the topic that invaded my search parameters. Sometimes looking at these literature reviews directed me to evidence-based studies though, however, much of what they were reporting on was rodent research.

I must admit, I am a little hung up on the wording of this forum, it refers to experiments and we didn’t have a limitation to only using experiments. We were required to include some qualitative research. I’m sure some of your topics may have guided you to use studies that were only reporting on survey data. A case study is not an experiment. A survey is not an experiment. So, if we are answering this solely about only using true experimental design, I would say the lived experience is lost.

Forum post response #3

Why do you think that is the case? Think from the perspective of psychology as both a profession and an academic discipline.

It is important to use evidence-based articles because it provides the best research evidence gathered from multiple research designs. There are multiple forms of research designs that contribute to evidence-based practices such as clinical observations, qualitative research, systematic case studies, single-case experimental designs, process outcome studies, studies that primarily focus on interventions within a naturalistic setting and meta-analysis amongst many other research designs (American Psychological Association, 2006). Additionally, using evidence-based experimental articles displays that the individual or individuals who conducted the studies have the clinical expertise and knowledge needed to be considered reliable. Many psychologists are not only trained to be scientists, but they are trained to also be practitioners (American Psychological Association, 2006). Throughout the psychological training’s psychologist develop clinical expertise and scientific expertise over the course of time. Evidence-based experimental articles provide experts within the field of psychology with reliable and knowledgeable information in the field of psychology.

What is gained by focusing on evidence-based experimental articles?

The information that is gained from focusing on evidence-based experimental articles is new or further knowledge. Information currently published about a certain topic may call for future research and the new evidence-based experimental articles may reveal new information, support past findings, address limitations to prior studies based or bridge a gap of information. Essentially you gain new information and knowledge about the effectiveness of assessments, diagnostics, treatment and patient progress using specific treatments.

What may be lost as a result of this requirement?

In terms of the type of information that may be lost as a result of this requirement is general information about the topic. With evidence-based experimental articles it focuses more on a specific topic and/or it addresses specific research questions or new research questions. It appears that one of the most valuable pieces of information that may be lost due to this requirement is not only the information presented throughout many studies but the limitation of the type of research methodologies that are found across different studies.