Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25939530›Full record

ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2015

The Idiographic Approach in Psychological Research. The Challenge of Overcoming Old Distinctions Without Risking to Homogenize.

Raffaele De Luca Picione

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Affective Semiosis of the Hypoglycemic Symptom in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025
    Article
  6. Propofol and Kearns-Sayre Syndrome: An idiographic approach.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Raffaele De Luca PicioneSInAPSi (Servizi per l'Inclusione Attiva e Partecipata degli Studenti - Center for Active and Integrated Inclusion of Students), University of Naples Federico II, Via Giulio Cesare Cortese, 29, 80133, Napoli, Italy, raffaele.delucapicione@unina.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper I discuss the relevance of the single-case approach in psychological research. Based upon work by Hurtado-Parrado and López-López (Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 2015), who outlined the possibility that Single-Case Methods (SCMs) could be a valid alternative to Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST), I introduce the idiographic approach (Salvatore and Valsiner Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 817-833, 2010; Valsiner Cultural & Psychology, 20(2), 147-159, 2014; Salvatore Culture & Psychology, 20(4), 477-500, 2014) based on the logic of abductive generalization, rather than the logic of inductive generalization. I present the theoretical, epistemological and methodological assumptions that this approach proposes; in particular, I discuss the re-conceptualization of some now obsolete rigid opposition, the inconsistency of sample use in psychological research, the relationship between uniqueness and general, the relationship between theory and phenomena, and finally the validation process.

Indexed as

Behavioral ResearchHumansPsychology, ExperimentalResearch Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.