A proposed protocol for the registration of evidence-based Educational Psychology programs

Abstract

The turn to evidence-based interventions is significant for Psychology in general and for Educational Psychology in particular. Although there is a great deal of published evidence for program validation, there is currently no protocol for the evaluation of educational psychology evidence-based intervention programs and there is no General Register of such programs to act as a central information depository. This article has four objectives: (1) To assess the significance of the turn to Evidence-Based Programs in the context of today’s Knowledge Society and Research and Development, Transfer and Innovation (R&Di) activities; (2) To provide a Classification of Programs based on the degree of specialization required for appropriate professional use in line with the requirements of the Code of Ethics in Psychology; (3) To tentatively propose a Protocol for the Registration of Evidence-Based Educational Psychology Programs; and (4) Finally, to identify some implications of the protocol. We conclude that there is a need for a General Register of validated programs.

Conceptual Utility Model for the Management of Stress and Psychological Wellbeing, CMMSPW™ in a university environment: theoretical basis, structure and functionality

“…The proposed Conceptual Utility Model ( de la Fuente et al, 2022a , b , c ; de la Fuente and Martínez-Vicente, 2023a , b , c ) aims to address and overcome the above limitations in an integrative heuristic based on prior evidence ( de la Fuente, 2021 ). It seeks to provide a general model applicable in different psychological fields, and to be both protective and predictive of stress and psychological wellbeing:…”

“…In terms of presage var iables , this model starts from the 3P model ( Biggs, 1999 ) which affirms the existence of presage (predictive) variables, process (mediating) variables and product (dependent) variables. To complement the 3P model in terms of presage variables, the Self- vs External-Regulation Behavior Theory model ( de la Fuente et al, 2017 , 2021a , b ; de la Fuente et al, 2022a , b , c ) has proposed Regulatory/Non-Regulatory/Dysregulatory levels for the individual and the context, based on biomedical models of dysregulation ( Shields et al, 2017 ).…”

“…From that starting point, the new model sought to extrapolate the specific model from the field of education to other psychological contexts, leading to the model in Self- vs External-Regulation Behavior Theory ( de la Fuente et al, 2021a , b , 2022a , b , c ), as a general model of regulatory behavior that could apply to different fields: Psychology of education and ICT, Clinical and Health Psychology, Social and Organizational Psychology, and other contexts ( de la Fuente et al, 2016a , 2022a , b , c ). To that end, we created and validated specific evaluation tools for use in the different fields ( de la Fuente et al, 2022a , b , c ; de la Fuente, 2024a , b ).…”

“…The X axis represents the degree of external regulation (high-medium-low), while the Y axis shows the directionality of the external regulation (+1, 0, −1). Reproduced with permission ( de la Fuente et al, 2022a , b , c , p. 17).…”

“…2.In a similar way, in the case of competence for the management of psychological wellbeing , a person is said to be competent to achieve a state of psychological wellbeing when they present the three levels of behavior referred to above, to adequately manage experiences and states of psychological wellbeing in different situations ( de la Fuente et al, 2022a , b , c ).…”