With the rise in efforts to evaluate the quality of mental health care and its outcomes, the measurement of change has become an important topic. This paper tracks the creation of a new instrument designed to assess psychotherapy outcome. The Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) was designed to include items relevant to three domains central to mental health: subjective discomfort, interpersonal relations, and social role performance. This study describes the theoretical development and psychometric properties of the OQ. Psychometric properties were assessed using clinical, community, and undergraduate samples. The OQ appears to have high reliability and evidence to suggest good concurrent and construct validity of the total score. The data presented show that it distinguishes patient from non‐patient samples, is sensitive to change, and correlates with other measures of patient distress.

No abstract

Many psychologists are concerned that disciplinary fragmentation is precluding the accumulation of knowledge and catalyzing the dissolution of institutionalized psychology. Herein the authors review prominently discussed causes of fragmentation and the solutions thus far tendered. Their review suggests that fragmentation pervades the discipline at many levels and that numerous, competing solutions to the problem of fragmentation have failed to promote unity. The authors suggest that 3 key questions must be answered before a tenable unification strategy can be formulated. Answers to these questions will provide a common starting point for discussing the problems and prospects of unification and for evaluating specific unification strategies.

Critical thinking in psychology has traditionally focused on method-centered tasks such as the assessment of method use, data analysis, and research evidence. Although helpful in some ways, this form of critical thinking fails to provide resources for critically examining the scientific analytic foundation on which it rests and, when used exclusively, prohibits sufficiently critical analysis of theory and research. An alternative view of critical thinking—that emphasizes the identification and evaluation of implicit theoretical assumptions—is advocated. It is suggested that this alternative approach improves on method-centered approaches by addressing not only implicit assumptions but also rule-following concerns. This approach is intended to facilitate innovation and the production of scholarly work in ways that incorporate relational values such as dialogue, care, and respect. Finally, this alternative form of critical thinking is described as a theoretically situated, open, and evolving conception of critique that should itself be continually reanalyzed and refined, particularly in response to the evolving nature and needs of the field.

This essay examines calls for methodological eclecticism based on the “compatibility thesis,” arguing that they fail to take seriously the assumptions of method and, in so doing, fail to provide a methodological perspective that adequately incorporates the centrally important task of critically examining the theoretical background of methods and conceptual frameworks for research. The authors offer an alternative view of method use and a set of guidelines that emphasize the importance of contextual sensitivity, creativity, conceptual awareness, coherence, and critical reflection in research and evaluation practices.