Fiftypsychologicalandpsychiatr

　　标题：Fiftypsychologicalandpsychiatrictermstoavoid：alistofinaccurate，misleading，misused，ambiguous，andlogicallyconfusedwordsandphrases
　　source：journal。frontiersin。ScottO。Lilienfeld，KatherynC。Sauvign，StevenJayLynn，RobinL。Cautin，RobertD。LatzmanandIrwinD。Waldman
　　欲翻译的小伙伴，可评论领稿，并把已完成的译文贴在评论处或发在自己的心理圈内。请领稿的小伙伴，尽量在一个星期内完成翻译，谢谢！！
　　（16）Lovemolecule。Over6000websiteshavedubbedthehormoneoxytocinthe“lovemolecule”（e。g。，Morse，2011）。Othershavenameditthe“trustmolecule”（Dvorsky，2012），“cuddlehormone”（Griffiths，2014），or“moralmolecule”（Zak，2013）。Nevertheless，dataderivedfromcontrolledstudiesimplythatalloftheseappellationsarewoefullysimplistic（Wong，2012；Jarrett，2015；Shen，2015）。Mostevidencesuggeststhatoxytocinrendersindividualsmoresensitivetosocialinformation（Stix，2014），bothpositiveandnegative。Forexample，althoughintranasaloxytocinseemstoincreasewithingrouptrust，itmayalsoincreaseoutgroupmistrust（Bethlehemetal。，2014）。Inaddition，amongindividualswithhighlevelsoftraitaggressiveness，oxytocinboostspropensitiestowardintimatepartnerviolencefollowingprovocation（DeWalletal。，2014）。Comparablephrasesappliedtootherneuralmessengers，suchastheterm“pleasuremolecule”asamonikerfordopamine，areequallymisleading（seeLandauetal。，2008；KringelbachandBerridge，2010，fordiscussions）。
　　（17）Multiplepersonalitydisorder。Althoughtheterm“multiplepersonalitydisorder”wasexpungedfromtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation’s（1994）diagnosticmanualovertwodecadesagoandhassincebeenreplacedby“dissociativeidentitydisorder”（DID），itpersistsinmanyacademicsources（e。g。，Hayes，2014）。Nevertheless，evenardentproponentsoftheviewthatDIDisanaturallyoccurringconditionthatstemslargelyfromchildhoodtrauma（e。g。，Ross，1994）acknowledgethat“multiplepersonalitydisorder”isamisnomer（LilienfeldandLynn，2015），becauseindividualswithDIDdonotgenuinelyharbortwoormorefullydevelopedpersonalities。Moreover，laboratorystudiesofthememoriesofindividualswithDIDdemonstratethatthe“alter”personalitiesorpersonalitystatesofindividualswithDIDarenotinsulatedbyimpenetrableamnesticbarriers（Merckelbachetal。，2002）。
　　（18）Neuralsignature。Onegroupofauthors，afterobservingthatcompliancewithsocialnormswasassociatedwithactivationsincertainbrainregions（lateralorbitofrontalcortexandrightdorsolateralcortex），referredtothe“neuralsignature”ofsocialnormcompliance（Spitzeretal。，2007，p。185）。Othershavereferredtoneuralsignaturesor“brainsignatures”ofpsychiatricdisorders，suchasanorexianervosa（Fladungetal。，2009）andautismspectrumdisorder（PelphreyandMcPartland，2012）。Nevertheless，identifyingagenuineneuralsignaturewouldnecessitatethediscoveryofaspecificpatternofbrainresponsesthatpossessesnearlyperfectsensitivityandspecificityforagivenconditionorotherphenotype。Atthepresenttime，neuroscientistsarenotremotelyclosetopinpointingsuchasignatureforanypsychologicaldisorderortrait（GillihanandParens，2011）。
　　（19）Nodifferencebetweengroups。Manyresearchers，afterreportingagroupdifferencethatdoesnotattainconventionallevelsofstatisticalsignificance，willgoontostatethat“therewasnodifferencebetweengroups。”Similarly，manyauthorswillreportthatanonsignificantcorrelationbetweentwovariablesmeansthat“therewasnoassociationbetweenthevariables。”Butafailuretorejectthenullhypothesisdoesnotmeanthatthenullhypothesis，strictlyspeaking，hasbeenconfirmed。Indeed，ifaninvestigatorfindsacorrelationofr0。11inasampleof20participants（whichisnotstatisticallysignificant），thebestestimateforthetruevalueofthecorrelationinthepopulation，presumingthatthesamplehasbeenrandomlyascertained，is0。11，not0。Authorsareinsteadadvisedtowrite“nosignificantdifferencebetweengroups”or“nosignificantcorrelationbetweenvariables。”
　　（20）Objectivepersonalitytest。Manyauthorsrefertopaperandpencilpersonalityinstrumentsthatemployastandard（e。g。，TrueFalse）itemresponseformat，suchastheMinnesotaMultiphasicPersonalityInventory2（MMPI2），as“objectivetests”（ProyerandHusler，2007），ostensiblytocontrastthemwithmore“subjective”measures，suchasunstructuredinterviewsorprojectivetechniques（e。g。，theRorschachInkblotTest）。Nevertheless，althoughtheformermeasurescanbescoredobjectively，thatis，withlittleornoerror（butseeAllardandFaust，2000，forevidenceofnontrivialerrorratesinthehandscoringoftheMMPIandotherpurported“objective”personalitytests），theyoftenrequireconsiderablesubjectivejudgmentonthepartofrespondents。Forexample，anitemsuchas“Ihavemanyheadaches”canbeinterpretedinnumerouswaysarisingfromambiguityinthemeaningsof“many”and“headache’（Meehl，1945）。Socalled“objective”personalitytestsarealsooftensubjectivewithrespecttointerpretation（Rogers，2003）。Forexample，evendifferentcomputerizedMMPI2interpretiveprogramsdisplayonlymoderatelevelsofinterrateragreementregardingproposeddiagnoses（Pantetal。，2014）。Notsurprisingly，cliniciansroutinelydisagreeintheirinterpretationsofprofilesontheMMPI2andother“objective”tests（Garb，1998）。Wethereforerecommendthatthesemeasuresbecalled“structured”tests（KaplanandSaccuzzo，2012），atermthatrefersonlytotheirresponseformatandthatcarriesnoimplicationthattheyareinterpretedobjectivelybyeitherexamineeorexaminer。
　　（21）Operationaldefinition。Thecredothatallpsychologicalinvestigatorsmustdevelop“operationaldefinitions”ofconstructsbeforeconductingstudieshasbecomesomethingofatruisminmanypsychologymethodstextbooksandotherresearchsources（e。g。，Burnette，2007）。Operationaldefinitionsarestrictdefinitionsofconceptsintermsoftheirmeasurementoperations。Asaconsequence，theyarepresumedtobeexactandexhaustivedefinitionsoftheseconcepts。PerhapsthebestknownexampleinpsychologyisBoring’s（1923）definitionofintelligenceaswhateverintelligencetestsmeasure。
　　Manypsychologistsappearunawarethatthenotionofoperationaldefinitionswasroundlyrejectedbyphilosophersofsciencedecadesago（Leahey，1980；Green，1992；GravetterandForzano，2012）。Operationaldefinitionsareunrealisticinvirtuallyalldomainsofpsychology，becauseconstructsarenotequivalenttotheirmeasurementoperations（Meehl，1986）。Forexample，an“operationaldefinition”ofaggressionastheamountofhotsauceaparticipantplacesinanexperimentalconfederate’sdrinkisnotanoperationaldefinitionatall，becausenoresearcherseriouslybelievesthattheamountofhotsauceplacedinadrinkisaperfectorprecisedefinitionofaggressionthatexhaustsallofitspotentialmanifestations。Operationaldefinitionsalsofelloutoffavorbecausetheyledtologicallyabsurdconclusions。Forexample，anoperationaldefinitionoflengthwouldimplythatlengthasmeasuredbyawoodenrulercannotbecomparedwithlengthasmeasuredbyametalruler，becausetheserulersareassociatedwithdifferentmeasurementoperations。Hence，thefactthatbothrulersyieldalengthforaofsay，27inches，couldnotbetakenasconvergingevidencethattheisinfact27incheslong（Green，1992）。
　　Psychologicalresearchersandteachersshouldthereforealmostalwayssteerclearoftheterm“operationaldefinition。”Theterm“operationalization”issuperior，asitavoidstheimplicationofanironcladdefinitionandislargelyfreeoftheproblematiclogicalbaggageassociatedwithitssisterterm。
　　（22）p0。000。Eventhoughthisstatisticalexpression，usedinover97，000manuscriptsaccordingtoGoogleScholar，makesregularcameoappearancesinourcomputerprintouts，weshouldassiduouslyavoidinsertingitinourResultssections。ThisexpressionimplieserroneouslythatthereisazeroprobabilitythattheinvestigatorshavecommittedaTypeIerror，thatis，afalserejectionofatruenullhypothesis（Streiner，2007）。Thatconclusionislogicallyabsurd，becauseunlessonehasexaminedessentiallytheentirepopulation，thereisalwayssomechanceofaTypeIerror，nomatterhowmeager。Needlesstosay，theexpression“0。000”isevenworse，astheprobabilityofcommittingaTypeIerrorcannotbelessthanzero。Authorswhosecomputerprintoutsyieldsignificancelevelsofp0。000shouldinsteadexpresstheselevelsouttoalargenumberofdecimalplaces，oratleastindicatethattheprobabilitylevelisbelowagivenvalue，0。010。001。
　　（23）Psychiatriccontrolgroup。Thisphraseandsimilarphrases（e。g。，“normalcontrolgroup，”“psychopathologicalcontrolgroup”）connoteerroneouslythat（a）groupsofostensiblynormalindividualsormixedpsychiatricpatientswhoarebeingcomparedwith（b）groupsofindividualswithadisorderofinterest（e。g。，schizophrenia，majordepression）aretrue“control”groups。Theyarenot。Theyare“comparisongroups”andshouldbereferredtoaccordingly。Thephrase“controlgroup”inthiscontextmayleavereaderswiththeunwarrantedimpressionthatthedesignofthestudyisexperimentalwhenitisactuallyquasiexperimental。Justasimportant，thistermmayimplythattheonlydifferencebetweenthetwogroups（e。g。，agroupofpatientswithanxietydisorderandagroupofostensiblynormalindividuals）isthepresenceorabsenceofthedisorderofinterest。Infact，thesetwogroupsalmostsurelydifferonanynumberof“nuisance”variables，suchaspersonalitytraits，cooccurringdisorders，andfamilybackground，renderingtheinterpretationofmostgroupdifferencesopentomultipleinterpretations（Meehl，1969）。
　　（24）Reliableandvalid。Ifoneearnedadollarforeverytimeanauthorusedthesentence“Thistestisreliableandvalid”inaMethodsection，onewouldbearichpersonindeed，asthephrase“reliableandvalid”appearsinmorethan190，000manuscriptsinGoogleScholar。Thereareatleastthreeproblemswiththisubiquitousphrase。First，itimpliesthatapsychologicaltestiseithervalidornotvalid。Muchlikethetestingofscientifictheories，theconstructvalidationprocessisnevercomplete，inessencereflectinga“workinprogress。”Asaconsequence，atestcannotbesaidtobehavebeenconclusivelyvalidatedorinvalidated（CronbachandMeehl，1955；Loevinger，1957；Peter，1981）。Hence，authorsshouldsimilarlyrefrainfromusingtheterm“validated’withrespecttopsychologicalmeasures。Atbest，thesemeasuresare“empiricallysupported”orhave“accruedsubstantialevidenceforconstructvalidity。”Thesamecaveatappliestopsychologicaltreatments。WhenDivision12（SocietyofClinicalPsychology）oftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationputforthitscriteriafor，andlistsof，psychotherapiesfoundtoworkincontrolledtrialsforspecificmentaldisorders，itinitiallytermedthem“empiricallyvalidatedtherapies”（Chamblessetal。，1998）。Nevertheless，inrecognitionofthefactthat“validation”impliescertaintyorfinality（Garfield，1996；ChamblessandHollon，1998），thecommitteewiselychangedthenameto“empiricallysupportedtherapies，”whichisnowthetermpresentlyinuse（Lilienfeldetal。，2013）。
　　Second，thephrase“reliableandvalid”impliesthatreliabilityandvalidityareunitaryconcepts。Theyarenot。Therearethreemajorformsofreliability：testretest，internalconsistency，andinterrater。Contrarytocommonbelief，theseformsofreliabilityoftendiverge，sometimesmarkedly（SchmidtandHunter，1996）。Forexample，scoresderivedfromtheThematicApperceptionTest，awidelyusedprojectivetechnique，frequentlydisplayhighlevelsoftestretestreliabilitybutlowlevelsofinternalconsistency（Entwistle，1972）。Therearealsomultipleformsofvalidity（e。g。，content，criterionrelated，incremental），whichsimilarlydonotnecessarilycoincide。Forexample，ameasuremaypossesshighlevelsofcriterionrelatedvalidityinmultiplesamplesbutlittleornoincrementalvalidityaboveandbeyondextantinformation（Garb，2003）。
　　Third，reliabilityandvalidityareconditionalonthespecificsamplesexamined，andshouldnotbeconsideredinherentpropertiesofatest。Hence，thenotionthatatestis“reliableandvalid”independentofthenatureofthesamplerunscountertocontemporarythinkinginpsychometrics（AmericanPsychologicalAssociationandAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation，2014）。
　　（25）Statisticallyreliable。Thisphraseappearsinover62，000manuscriptsaccordingtoGoogleScholar。Itistypicallyinvokedwhenreferringtostatisticalsignificance，e。g。，“Althoughsmallinabsoluteterms，thisdifferencewasstatisticallyreliable，t（157）2。86，p0。005”（Zurbriggenetal。，2011，p。453）。Nevertheless，despitewhatmanypsychologistsbelieve（TverskyandKahneman，1971；Krueger，2001），statisticalsignificancebearsatbestamodestconceptualandempiricalassociationwitharesult’s“reliability，”thatis，itsreplicabilityorconsistencyovertime（Carver，1978）。Indeed，giventhelowstatisticalpowerofmoststudiesinpsychology，areasonableargumentcouldbeadvancedthatmoststatisticallysignificantresultsareunlikelytobereliable。Thestatisticalsignificanceofaresultshouldthereforenotbeconfusedwithitslikelihoodofreplication（Miller，2009）。