4 ms·
Link to the actual paper: http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-07714-001.pdf http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-07714-001.pdf
by nokcha 9y ago
Link to the actual paper: http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-07714-001.pdf http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-07714-001.pdf
- tokenadult 9y agoThanks for sharing that link. The underlying paper is (of course) better than the popular article kindly submitted to open the interesting discussion here. In particular, the paper makes clear its own methodological limitations.
- DanAndersen 9y agoThanks! I wasn't sure whether to link the summary blog post or the original paper. Having both is definitely good for the discussions here.
- DanBC 9y agoBPS is hit and miss. Sometimes they're great; sometimes they really mangle the science. https://www1.bps.org.uk/networks-and-communities/member-microsite/division-clinical-psychology/understanding-psychosis-and-schizophrenia https://www1.bps.org.uk/networks-and-communities/member-micr... First response from 2014: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/publication-types/report/understanding-psychosis-and-schizophrenia-a-critique-by-laws-langford-and-huda/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/publication-types/report/... Newer response to updated document from 2017: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/psychosis/understandingpsychosis/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/psychosis/u... It's a bit worrying that they get so much wrong.