The American Psychological Association between the world wars: 1918 to 1941.

2017 ◽  
pp. 115-143
Author(s):  
Franz Samelson
Keyword(s):  
American Psychological Association ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
The World

scholarly journals ¿Quién es autor? Las autorías múltiples, criterios y lineamientos

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. e290
Author(s):  
Alberto Chamorro
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
International Committee ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
World Association ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law

Este artículo tiene por objeto: 1. Poner en evidencia las prácticas injustificadas más recurrentes en la asignación de autorías en las publicaciones científicas. 2. Rastrear los criterios frecuentemente aceptados dentro de la comunidad académica para establecer quién puede, en propiedad, llamarse autor, y 3. Proponer un conjunto de medidas que permitan valorar apropiadamente artículos con múltiples autores. Para ello se hizo una revisión de artículos publicados en Pubmed y Scopus usando palabras claves como “autoría” (authorship), “criterios para establecer autorías” (authorship guidelines), “artículos con múltiples autores” (multiple authors). A partir de los hallazgos, se indagaron las irregularidades más relevantes y los principios más aceptados. Como resultado, a través de los documentos consultados fueron identificadas las prácticas más censurables y las fuentes de criterios más reconocidas para establecer las autorías: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Council Science Editors (CSE), The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), National Institutes of Health (NIH), The American Psychological Association (APA) y The Center for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Sidney University (SEH). Debido a que gran parte de los lineamientos dados por estas organizaciones son en su mayor parte impracticables, se propone una nueva forma y se concluye que es menester que tanto financiadores, instituciones, editoriales, editores en jefe e investigadores, asuman ciertas funciones de control y seguimiento, de tal forma que se preserve la integridad científica de las publicaciones, sin interferencia de las métricas.

Introduction

2013 ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Christine Maguth Nezu ◽  
Christopher R. Martell ◽  
Arthur M. Nezu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Professional Psychology ◽  
Learning Theories ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
The World ◽  
Formal Recognition

Chapter 1 traces the converging paths and unique characteristics of the specialty of cognitive and behavioural psychology beginning with foundational learning theories and the emergence of behaviourism in the United States and the rest of the world. It also covers the numerous factors that contributed to the specialty’s evolution, and how the approach was focused on applying a scientific method to understanding and treating psychopathology. It also illustrates the path from the specialty’s early roots to its present day, and the formal recognition of the specialty by the Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP), which is associated with the American Psychological Association (APA), and the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP).

Religious Beliefs and Scientific Ideology in Psychologists: Conflicting or Coexisting Systems?

1992 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher I. Eckhardt ◽  
Howard Kassinove ◽  
Lawrence Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Belief Systems ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Religion And Science ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Religious Ideology ◽  
Sources Of Knowledge ◽  
Item Questionnaire ◽  
The World ◽  
Personal Conflict

147 Members and Fellows of the American Psychological Association were surveyed to assess their endorsement of religion and science as sources of knowledge and their self-perceived conflict between these two orientations. A 37-item questionnaire was constructed to assess religiosity, religious ideology, scientific thinking, and self-perceived conflict. Psychologists reported mild to moderate involvement and identification with religion, which is much lower than that found among the genera] public. However, they were also skeptical of science as providing the only mode of fully explaining the world. While there was a low, positive correlation between religiosity and personal conflict, subjects were generally conflict-free. Few psychologists endorsed coexisting religious and scientific belief systems.

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document