"Hans-Ulrich Wittchen .. is under fire after an investigation into one of his studies found evidence of manipulation—and elaborate efforts to cover up the misdeed. The investigation report .. also shows Wittchen intimidated whistleblowers"
1/ A test helps to determine whether you have a feature or not.
Good tests are precise: they predict a feature well, have high sensitivity/specificity, & low false positives/negatives.
2/ Precise biological tests do not exist for the most common mental disorders. There are some weak biological correlates for depression, but a weak correlate is not a test, the same way that a weak correlate of COVID (coughing) is not a test for COVID.
Happy to share our new preprint with Edwin de Beurs, in which we recommend to solve the current dilemma "So-Many-Scales-For-The-Same-Construct" (e.g. for depression) by mandating a common metric, not by mandating a common measure.🧵
We introduce the problem of scale proliferation, and how it impacts not only science, but also communication (between researchers & policy makers; between clinicians; between clinicians & clients; etc).
Beavers, like all species, are convenient fiction. Thinking of beavers as true category in nature is pre-Darwinian.
Beavers, instead, are a number of animals that cluster together quite closely in an n-dimensional space on a large number of features.
Outrageous? Bear with me.🧵
What are these features? They include things like length, hairiness, intelligence, number of limbs, distance of ears to claws, and so on.
These features cluster together because they are causally related (often in complex ways).
Imagine this 2-feature plot, except with 3.7 billion features.
You can see that many elephants and many beavers clusters on 2 features. You can also see an outlier elephant (lots of hair) and an outlier beaver (exceptionally heavy).
What do y'all think about APS' decision to offer 15min flash talks (1 person) rather than symposia in 2021 virtual conference? Bit sad that (online) panel discussions, symposia followed by discussions, etc are skipped. Always found such interactions btw folks most engaging.
But have no experience in conference orga, so I'm sure there are good reasons.
To me, looks like youtube would do a better job because 1) youtube comes without conference fee, and 2) presentations would be #openaccess rather than behind APS paywall.
What am I missing? Thx!
In case all talks open, there is genuine value to participate in APS of course ($ then is for talks to be organized, vetted, grouped, etc).
In case talks paywalled, curious how that can be policed (can hardly forbid folks to upload talks into general OSF repository)
New paper "Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature" is in press at Psych Inquiry. This took a while to write—the first draft dates back to 2016.
The most exciting aspect is that Psych Inquiry will publish many critical commentaries, including from the very people whose work inspired me to write the paper in the first place. Some of them, incl. @IrisVanRooij & @psmaldino, are even listed in the ack section of the paper.
Here is Iris' preprint, together with @giosuebaggio:
Our paper on measuring outcomes that matter to depressed patients, caregivers, & healthcare professionals is out, led by the brilliant 🔥@ChevanceAstrid🔥.
Details in 🧵below. If you RT only one of my tweets this year, make it this one.
1/ Clinical studies on depression assess symptoms (e.g. sad mood), but there are no proper standards on what symptoms to measure. A recent meta-analysis on psychotherapeutic interventions (200 studies) identified 33 different outcomes used.
2/ Further, symptoms are not a good proxy for how people are doing; e.g. recovery of functioning often lags half a year behind symptom recovery. Finally, it's 2020, yet it is unclear what outcomes we should measure to fully capture people's lived experiences with depression.