Premium
When is the evidence sufficiently supportive of real‐world application? Evidence‐based practices, open science, clinical readiness level
Author(s) -
Shaw Steven R.,
Pecsi Sierra
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/pits.22537
Subject(s) - rubric , psychology , evidence based practice , scope (computer science) , psychological intervention , transparency (behavior) , relevance (law) , medical education , pandemic , applied psychology , pedagogy , covid-19 , medicine , alternative medicine , disease , pathology , psychiatry , computer science , political science , infectious disease (medical specialty) , law , programming language
Evidence‐based interventions are the standard for school psychology practice. Yet, how do professionals know when research scope, relevance, transparency, and quality are ready for real‐world application? There remain questions as to exactly how these core concepts of evidence‐based practices (EBPs) are realized. A discussion on whether psychological science can be relied on to deliver real‐world practices related to the coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic led IJzerman and colleagues to develop a rubric to evaluate research for real‐world application called evidence readiness level. This model is adapted for school psychologists' use in evaluating and implementing research for clinical practice. Clinical readiness level is a rubric that is designed to narrow the research‐to‐practice gap, provide criteria for EBPs, and specify the value of a scientist‐practitioner model of school psychology.