Contributions of African-centered (Africentric) psychology: A call for inclusion in APA-accredited graduate psychology program curriculum.

Over the past few years, there has been increased visibility of, and attention paid to, enduring issues such as racial discrimination toward Black Americans. Black psychologists have been called upon to explain various race-related mental health issues to the public, as well as their colleagues and students. Discussions about how to heal from persistent, intergenerational, oppressive attacks on the African psyche are important, but the theories and treatments in which most practitioners are trained and considered "best practices" are Eurocentric in nature. African-centered (or Africentric) psychology is a well-established school of thought, predating the philosophies often discussed in Western/American psychology's History and Systems curriculum, that provides an authentic understanding of the psychology of people of African descent from an African perspective. In this article, we present the historical contention about the lack of inclusion of an African perspective in conceptualizing and addressing the psychological needs of people of African descent, provide an overview of African-centered psychology including its underlying worldview and philosophy, development, and key contributors, and advocate for the inclusion of Africentric psychology in APA-accredited psychology graduate programs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

"The world looks like this from here": Kopano Ratele's African psychology.

This contribution engages the work of the contemporary South African Psychologist, Kopano Ratele, to illustrate the facets of sociopolitical and psychological dimensions of psychology from the Global South and its relevance for reimagining psychology across the continent and the global world. Ratele's African psychology framework offers us both a contemporary and critical analytic lens to reflect on the psychic life of power from the vantage point of Africa. This article explores two thematic contributions of Ratele's African psychology: (a) culture and tradition and (b) Black interiority. Ratele's African psychology presents a marked departure from much African psychology scholarship in its attention to the psychopolitics of Black life and Black death. Furthermore, by presenting African psychology as orientation, Ratele can engage both ontological and methodological dimensions of Black subjectivity as diverse, complex, and nonessentialist. In putting forward Ratele's scholarship as a key contribution to African and Black psychology, this article thus addresses the current epistemological impasse that seems to exist in psychology in Africa. This article concludes that Ratele's African psychology may provide us with a means of addressing this impasse toward making psychology in Africa relevant. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Inquiry in psychology.

When they discuss the Danish academic situation, Szulevicz, Lund and Lund (2021) address three questions about the academic training of psychology researchers: (a) why do Danish master's students in psychology more frequently choose the qualitative method for their research?; (b) what are psychology students working on?; and (c) what are they interested in? These three questions have led us to reflect on researcher training and the political and educational model universities adopt for psychology master's courses, not only in the Danish context, but also in other general contexts. In this commentary, we will discuss one strictly normative issue: what should the scientific ideal be for training researchers in psychology? Or more accurately: how can psychology contribute to discussions about the scientific ideal of researcher training in this knowledge area?

School-based autism evaluations in the COVID-19 era.

School psychologists play a critical role in school-based Autism (AU) evaluations. Evidence-based AU evaluations should be multimodal, include multiple informants, and assess functioning across several domains. In the current era of COVID-19, school-based AU evaluations have become increasingly complex with school psychologists having to significantly adapt face-to-face evaluation procedures and/or conduct evaluations via teleassessment approaches. This poses profound challenges for some families, many of whom are from vulnerable groups. In the current article, we outline school psychologists' traditional role in school-based AU evaluations and review best practice guidelines. We then discuss the impact of COVID-19 on these processes and provide a framework for school psychologists to use when conducting school-based AU evaluations during this unprecedented time. We also provide resources school psychologists may find useful as they conduct school-based AU evaluations during the COVID-19 pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Beyond Statistical Ritual: Theory in Psychological Science.

More than 40 years ago, Paul Meehl (1978) published a seminal critique of the state of theorizing in psychological science. According to Meehl, the quality of theories had diminished in the preceding decades, resulting in statistical methods standing in for theoretical rigor. In this introduction to the special issue Theory in Psychological Science, we apply Meehl's account to contemporary psychological science. We suggest that by the time of Meehl's writing, psychology found itself in the midst of a crisis that is typical of maturing sciences, in which the theories that had been guiding research were gradually cast into doubt. Psychologists were faced with the same general choice when worldviews fail: Face reality and pursue knowledge in the absence of certainty, or shift emphasis toward sources of synthetic certainty. We suggest that psychologists have too often chosen the latter option, substituting synthetic certainties for theory-guided research, in much the same manner as Scholastic scholars did centuries ago. Drawing from our contributors, we go on to make recommendations for how psychological science may fully reengage with theory-based science.

Models of remote professional supervision for psychologists in rural and remote locations: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Psychology workforce shortages in geographically rural or remote contexts have highlighted the need to understand the supervisory experiences of psychologists practising in these locations, and the models of supervision employed to support their practice and improve client safety. OBJECTIVE: To review the models of remote professional supervision and the supervisory experiences of psychologists practising in rural and remote locations. DESIGN: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for mixed-methods systematic review, 8 health and education databases were searched using keyword and subject heading searches. FINDINGS: The initial search identified 413 studies. A full-text review identified 4 papers that met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to a methodological appraisal by 2 reviewers. Three studies included qualitative data, with 2 using transcribed interviews. Two studies reported quantitative data, with only one study including a statistical analysis of the outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results for the efficacy of the current models of remote supervision being used within the allied health and psychology professions are limited, with methodological limitations cautioning generalisability of results. The experiences of psychologists engaged in remote supervision do not appear to have changed over the past decade despite technological advances. CONCLUSIONS: Quality professional supervision is critical for the sustainability of the psychology workforce in rural and remote locations, reducing professional isolation, and for improved patient outcomes. This review identified a need for improved evidence for remote supervision models for psychologists working in geographically rural and remote locations. Lessons can be learned from other health professions' models of remote supervision.

Decálogo de recomendaciones sobre psicología y deporte juvenil. Documento de consenso / Recommendations for psychology and youth sports. A consensus document

Las organizaciones deportivas involucradas en el deporte-base cuentan con entrenadores, directivos y árbitros cuya actitud, trabajo y dedicación permite deducir que la mayoría son ciudadanos voluntarios con escaso conocimiento sobre la psicología como método de trabajo. Este documento, impulsado por el Programa Talento Deportivo de la Universidad de Navarra y el Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Navarra, aborda el papel de la psicología en el deporte infanto-juvenil y los beneficios que puede aportar a deportistas, padres, entrenadores, árbitros o directivos. También establece un consenso en forma de decálogo y veintisiete recomendaciones con el objetivo de reconocer los beneficios de mejorar el conocimiento psicológico de los distintos perfiles implicados en el deporte-base con el fin de adquirir destrezas que beneficien tanto el rendimiento como el estado psicológico. Su objetivo es proveer unas directrices psicológicas para utilizarlas en el manejo y entrenamiento de los deportistas infanto-juveniles

Sports organisations involved in grassroots sports have trainers, managers and referees whose attitudes, work and dedication show that many of them are volunteers with little knowledge of psychology as a working method. This document, promoted by the Programa Talento Deportivo of the University of Navarra and the Official Association of Psychologists of Navarra, considers the role of psychology in children's and adolescents' sport and the benefits it can offer to sports players, parents, trainers, referees and managers. It also establishes a consensus in the form of a set of guidelines and twenty-seven recommendations. The aim of this consensus is to recognise the benefits of including psychology in the profiles involved in grassroots sport, to enable those involved to acquire skills that can help to improve performance and psychological states, promoting directives to be used when managing and training young sports players

Creating an antiracist psychology by addressing professional complicity in psychological assessment.

The acceptance of racist practices in psychological assessment, like the use of racist stimuli in testing material, has gone unchallenged for far too long. Such practices are emblematic of the entrenched systems of structural racism and pernicious presence of anti-Black oppression within psychology and beyond. This article brings into focus one glaring example: the inclusion of a noose as an item in one of the most widely used standardized tests in neuropsychology-the Boston Naming Test. The deeply offensive nature of this item has gone publicly unaddressed in the psychological literature for decades despite over 27,000 published articles with this test as a primary keyword. Herein, we review the history of the racialized weaponization of the noose in the United States; the potential psychological harm and test performance degradation imposed by including racist stimuli in assessment materials; and the ethical and cultural competency implications of exposing examinees to racist stimuli during psychological assessments. Finally, we call out the professional complicity underlying this item's persistence in psychology, urging psychologists, test publishers, and members of editorial boards to put an end to the complicit support and take clear corrective action in response to this offense. We also charge our colleagues and community to critically review other psychological assessment measures, language, and procedures in their respective subdisciplines to make the changes that will align professional practice with the antiracist values required to undo the effects of structural racism in psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses.

Objective: Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. One question that could lend insight into how and through whom misinformation spreads is whether certain people are susceptible to many types of health misinformation, regardless of the health topic at hand. This study provided an initial answer to this question and also tested four hypotheses concerning the psychosocial attributes of people who are susceptible to health misinformation: (1) deficits in knowledge or skill, (2) preexisting attitudes, (3) trust in health care and/or science, and (4) cognitive miserliness. Method: Participants in a national U.S. survey (N = 923) rated the perceived accuracy and influence of true and false social media posts about statin medications, cancer treatment, and the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine and then responded to individual difference and demographic questions. Results: Perceived accuracy of health misinformation was strongly correlated across statins, cancer, and the HPV vaccine (rs ≥ .70), indicating that individuals who are susceptible to misinformation about one of these topics are very likely to believe misinformation about the other topics as well. Misinformation susceptibility across all three topics was most strongly predicted by lower educational attainment and health literacy, distrust in the health care system, and positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. Conclusions: A person who is susceptible to online misinformation about one health topic may be susceptible to many types of health misinformation. Individuals who were more susceptible to health misinformation had less education and health literacy, less health care trust, and more positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Reconsidering statistical methods for assessing replication.

Recent empirical evaluations of replication in psychology have reported startlingly few successful replication attempts. At the same time, these programs have noted that the proper way to analyze replication studies is far from a settled matter and have analyzed their data in several different ways. This presents 2 challenges to interpreting the results of these programs. First, different analysis methods assess different operational definitions of replication. Second, the properties of these methods are not necessarily common knowledge; it is possible for a successful replication to be deemed a failure by nearly all of the metrics used, and it is not always immediately clear how likely such errors are to occur. In this article, we describe the methods commonly used in replication research and how they imply specific operational definitions of replication. We then compute the probability of false failure (i.e., a successful replication is concluded to have failed) and false success determinations. These are shown to be high (often over 50%) and in many cases uncontrolled. We then demonstrate that errors are probable in the data to which these methods have been applied in the literature. We show that the probability that some reported conclusions about replication are incorrect can be as high as 75-80%. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Arrested Theory Development: The Misguided Distinction Between Exploratory and Confirmatory Research.

Science progresses by finding and correcting problems in theories. Good theories are those that help facilitate this process by being hard to vary: They explain what they are supposed to explain, they are consistent with other good theories, and they are not easily adaptable to explain anything. Here we argue that, rather than a lack of distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research, an abundance of flexible theories is a better explanation for the current replicability problems of psychology. We also explain why popular methods-oriented solutions fail to address the real problem of flexibility. Instead, we propose that a greater emphasis on theory criticism by argument might improve replicability.

When the Numbers Do Not Add Up: The Practical Limits of Stochastologicals for Soft Psychology.

One particular weakness of psychology that was left implicit by Meehl is the fact that psychological theories tend to be verbal theories, permitting at best ordinal predictions. Such predictions do not enable the high-risk tests that would strengthen our belief in the verisimilitude of theories but instead lead to the practice of null-hypothesis significance testing, a practice Meehl believed to be a major reason for the slow theoretical progress of soft psychology. The rising popularity of meta-analysis has led some to argue that we should move away from significance testing and focus on the size and stability of effects instead. Proponents of this reform assume that a greater emphasis on quantity can help psychology to develop a cumulative body of knowledge. The crucial question in this endeavor is whether the resulting numbers really have theoretical meaning. Psychological science lacks an undisputed, preexisting domain of observations analogous to the observations in the space-time continuum in physics. It is argued that, for this reason, effect sizes do not really exist independently of the adopted research design that led to their manifestation. Consequently, they can have no bearing on the verisimilitude of a theory.

Theory Before the Test: How to Build High-Verisimilitude Explanatory Theories in Psychological Science.

Drawing on the philosophy of psychological explanation, we suggest that psychological science, by focusing on effects, may lose sight of its primary explananda: psychological capacities. We revisit Marr's levels-of-analysis framework, which has been remarkably productive and useful for cognitive psychological explanation. We discuss ways in which Marr's framework may be extended to other areas of psychology, such as social, developmental, and evolutionary psychology, bringing new benefits to these fields. We then show how theoretical analyses can endow a theory with minimal plausibility even before contact with empirical data: We call this the theoretical cycle. Finally, we explain how our proposal may contribute to addressing critical issues in psychological science, including how to leverage effects to understand capacities better.

Practical Methodological Reform Needs Good Theory.

In the face of unreplicable results, statistical anomalies, and outright fraud, introspection and changes in the psychological sciences have taken root. Vibrant reform and metascience movements have emerged. These are exciting developments and may point toward practical improvements in the future. Yet there is nothing so practical as good theory. This article outlines aspects of reform and metascience in psychology that are ripe for an injection of theory, including a lot of excellent and overlooked theoretical work from different disciplines. I review established frameworks that model the process of scientific discovery, the types of scientific networks that we ought to aspire to, and the processes by which problematic norms and institutions might evolve, focusing especially on modeling from the philosophy of science and cultural evolution. We have unwittingly evolved a toxic scientific ecosystem; existing interdisciplinary theory may help us intelligently design a better one.

Quo Vadis, Methodology? The Key Role of Manipulation Checks for Validity Control and Quality of Science.

The current debate about how to improve the quality of psychological science revolves, almost exclusively, around the subordinate level of statistical significance testing. In contrast, research design and strict theorizing, which are superordinate to statistics in the methods hierarchy, are sorely neglected. The present article is devoted to the key role assigned to manipulation checks (MCs) for scientific quality control. MCs not only afford a critical test of the premises of hypothesis testing but also (a) prompt clever research design and validity control, (b) carry over to refined theorizing, and (c) have important implications for other facets of methodology, such as replication science. On the basis of an analysis of the reality of MCs reported in current issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we propose a future methodology for the post-p < .05 era that replaces scrutiny in significance testing with refined validity control and diagnostic research designs.

Toward a more transparent, rigorous, and generative psychology.

Psychological Bulletin has long enjoyed a reputation as a source for what research has revealed about psychological phenomena; it maintains a prestigious position of leadership in psychological science and for science at large; it publishes evidence syntheses that are the most comprehensive and rigorous reviews available; it informs theorists and practitioners. I am duly honored to be selected as its editor; accordingly, my goal is to guard this tradition and, to the greatest extent possible, improve the rigor and transparency of submissions. Incorporating advances in evidence synthesis methods will help ensure that the Bulletin retains its esteemed position. Thus, I encourage the strongest possible scholarly evidence syntheses addressing central psychological issues. It is important to use contemporary methods for evidence synthesis because evidence syntheses are a form of metascience, using science to understand trends in science. Stronger methods have the potential to reduce error and the play of chance, making conclusions more trustworthy. Importantly, therefore, carefully conducted evidence syntheses offer the hope of transforming particular domains of research. Accordingly, this editorial will focus on some strategies that deserve, in my opinion, greater use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Reversing Bonferroni.

It is common for conclusions of empirical studies to depend on multiple significant outcomes. This practice may seem reasonable, but it has some unintended effects. In particular, the compound Type I error rate for multiple studies (the likelihood of concluding that an effect exists when it does not) can be much lower than that of the individual studies. This in itself is not a problem since a low Type I error rate is desirable. However, there is also an accompanying drop in power, meaning that the probability of finding support for a true effect is low. Currently, there is no standard statistical method for dealing with the hyper-conservative error rate and accompanying low power that results from investigations requiring multiple significant outcomes. Here, we propose a novel solution to this problem: We show that it is sometimes appropriate to reverse the logic of the classic Bonferroni correction and increase the significance criterion in order to maintain an intended compound Type I error rate across multiple tests. This reverse Bonferroni approach dramatically improves statistical power and encourages careful planning of statistical analyses prior to data collection. To avoid adding to the list of questionable research practices that seem to contaminate some psychological research, we suggest that reverse Bonferroni be restricted to situations where authors pre-register their analysis plans.

Improving Geropsychology Competencies of Veterans Affairs Psychologists.

Older adults are more likely to seek mental health care through integrated care settings such as primary care. Currently, there exists a significant shortage of mental health providers trained in geropsychology and integrated care competencies. To address this need within the Veterans Health Administration, a national workforce development program was extended to include psychologists, which is called the Geriatric Scholars Program-Psychology Track (GSP-P). The GSP-P has two overarching educational program aims: (1) to improve geropsychology competencies of practicing VA psychologists, particularly those working within integrated settings (e.g., primary care) and (2) enrich psychologists' abilities to enact change in their clinical settings. Ninety-eight VA clinicians participated in the GSP-P, which includes a multi-day in-person course, from 2014 to 2018. Participants completed measures assessing confidence and self-reported knowledge in geropsychology and integrated care competencies pre-course and 3-months post-completion. Two-weeks post-course participants responded to open-ended survey questions regarding their perceptions of the course and potential applications of learning. Significant improvements in confidence in and knowledge of geropsychology and integrated care competencies emerged from pre-course to 3-months post-completion. Qualitative findings demonstrated that participants valued the face-to-face, integrated multimodal educational program. Findings provided insights regarding clinicians' planned application of the knowledge acquired, such as modifying treatments for older patients. Specialized workforce programs such as the GSP-P have a significant, positive impact on the care of older Veterans.

Heterogeneity of Research Results: A New Perspective From Which to Assess and Promote Progress in Psychological Science.

Heterogeneity emerges when multiple close or conceptual replications on the same subject produce results that vary more than expected from the sampling error. Here we argue that unexplained heterogeneity reflects a lack of coherence between the concepts applied and data observed and therefore a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Typical levels of heterogeneity thus offer a useful but neglected perspective on the levels of understanding achieved in psychological science. Focusing on continuous outcome variables, we surveyed heterogeneity in 150 meta-analyses from cognitive, organizational, and social psychology and 57 multiple close replications. Heterogeneity proved to be very high in meta-analyses, with powerful moderators being conspicuously absent. Population effects in the average meta-analysis vary from small to very large for reasons that are typically not understood. In contrast, heterogeneity was moderate in close replications. A newly identified relationship between heterogeneity and effect size allowed us to make predictions about expected heterogeneity levels. We discuss important implications for the formulation and evaluation of theories in psychology. On the basis of insights from the history and philosophy of science, we argue that the reduction of heterogeneity is important for progress in psychology and its practical applications, and we suggest changes to our collective research practice toward this end.