Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27313187›Full record

ArticleAssessment2016

Advancing the Assessment of Dynamic Psychological Processes.

Aidan G C Wright, Christopher J Hopwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Assessment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. A scoping review of naturalistic assessments of self-control.Personality and individual differences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Validating digital phenotyping technologies for clinical use: the critical importance of "resolution".World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Aidan G C Wright1 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Christopher J Hopwood2 Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Funding

NIMH NIH HHS L30 MH101760
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most commonly used clinical assessment tools cannot fully capture the dynamic psychological processes often hypothesized as core mechanisms of psychopathology and psychotherapy. There is therefore a gap between our theories of problems and interventions for those problems and the tools we use to understand clients. The purpose of this special issue is to connect theory about clinical dynamics to practice by focusing on methods for collecting dynamic data, statistical models for analyzing dynamic data, and conceptual schemes for implementing dynamic data in applied settings. In this introductory article, we argue for the importance of assessing dynamic processes, highlight recent advances in assessment science that enable their measurement, review challenges in using these advances in applied practice, and adumbrate the articles in this issue.

Indexed as

Mental ProcessesPsychoanalysisHumansdynamicsidiographicsprocessespsychological assessment

Identifiers

PMID27313187
PMCPMC5161724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.