Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27540315›Full record

ReviewPsychology research and behavior management2016

Psychological literacy: proceed with caution, construction ahead.

Douglas D Murdoch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychology research and behavior management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Douglas D MurdochDepartment of Psychology, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychological literacy is the ethical application of psychological skills and knowledge. This could benefit individuals in their personal, occupational, and civic lives and subsequently benefit society as a whole. We know that psychology has a wide-ranging impact on society. The potential benefits of a psychologically literate citizenry in improved parenting, better business practices, enlightened legislation, and many other areas make this a desirable goal. It has been proposed that this should become the primary goal of an undergraduate psychology education to benefit the majority who do not go on to graduate school and even those who only take a few psychology courses. This idea has significant merit and warrants further investigation and development. However, there are major concerns that need to be addressed. First, what are uniquely psychological skills and knowledge? Many of the skills psychology undergraduates acquire are generic to university and not specific to psychology. Second, psychology can be as harmful when misapplied as it can be beneficial when ethically applied. Third, psychology departments will need to address pragmatic as well as ethical issues, including issues of competency, boundaries, accountability, and confidentiality. Fourth, the available empirical evidence to direct such efforts is primarily at the anecdotal, case example, and pilot study stages. Significant improvements are needed in measuring psychological literacy, choice of outcome measures, and research methodologies before these advantages can be realized in an empirically supported manner. Currently, best practices in the undergraduate curriculum are the mindful and purposeful design of courses and experiential opportunities. It is proposed that psychological literacy is best conceptualized as a meta-literacy and that it should become a goal of psychology undergraduate education but not necessarily the goal.

Indexed as

best practicescurriculumethicspsychology’s uniquenessstudent learning outcomesteaching of psychologyundergraduate psychology

Identifiers

PMID27540315
PMCPMC4982490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.