Removing Barriers to Athlete Performance Enhancement: A Hermeneutic Case Study of Observed and Experiential Integration

Wall, Jessie M.; Kwee, Janelle L.; McDonald, Marvin; Bradshaw, Richard A.

doi:10.1123/jcsp.2014-0046

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is not intended to replace the use of the aforementioned MCS-SP semistructured interview or another formal interview tool. For some of the most recent examples of uses of the MCS-SP, see, for instance, Haziyanti, Shariff, and Ahmad (2017); Huggins (2018); Human (2013); Human and Human (2016); Purdy, Molnar, Griffiths, and Castle (2014); Wall, Kwee, McDonald, and Bradshaw (2014); and Wolanin and Schwanhausser (2010).…”

Section: Psychological Assessment Using the Multilevel Classification...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological assessment in sport psychology.

Gardner

Anshel²,

Petrie³

et al. 2019

APA Handbook of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Volume 1: Sport Psychology (Vol. 1).

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Psychological Assessment Using the Multilevel Classification...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological assessment in sport psychology.

Gardner

Anshel²,

Petrie³

et al. 2019

APA Handbook of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Volume 1: Sport Psychology (Vol. 1).

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Google Scholar, our previous commentary has been cited 27 times. We are pleased to note that the great majority (15) of these citations were used to support systematic case studies (and more particularly HSCED studies; e.g., Wall et al, 2014). Citations were most commonly made by UK-based researchers (10), but also included researchers from Canada (9), Chile (4), Portugal (2), the Czech Republic (2) and Finland (1).…”

Section: Introduction: the Story So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary—Extending the Boundaries of Systematic Case Study Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

Elliott¹,

Stephen²,

Robinson³

2021

PCSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this commentary we discuss the two examples of systematic case study research in this issue: Miller et al., (2021), who continue the development of the quasi-judicial Panels of Psychological Inquiry method by applying it to a child client with an autistic spectrum condition; and Bohart et al. (2021), who apply their research jury approach to a video recorded case of Emotionally-Focused Therapy for couples. We open by briefly summarizing the main issues addressed in our previous commentary (Stephen Elliott, 2011), which involved the same authors; we also note some key developments in systematic case study research over the past ten years. The rest of our commentary is divided into three parts. First, we look at more general conceptual issues in systematic case study research, including situations in which systematic case studies are likely to be most useful; the problem of overly broad research questions; the definition and assessment of outcome; and the thorny issue of causality. In the second part, we turn our attention to methodological issues raised by the two articles, returning to the questions of what counts as evidence in systematic case study research (here the use of observational methods for assessing client change and change processes), but also to the processes by which research judges or jurors make decisions about knowledge claims and methods for generalizing from one case to other cases. In the final main section, we offer more substantive commentary on Miller et al. (2021), from the point of view of autism research. We start by putting the DIR/Floortime intervention in context before raising key diagnostic issues that we think circumscribe the case and spelling out uncertainties about the nature of the intervention used. We round off this section with a set of proposals for future systematic single case research on interventions for autism. We close our commentary with a brief set of recommendations.

show abstract

Enhancing the hermeneutic single-case efficacy design: Bridging the research–practice gap

Wall

Kwee

et al. 2016

Psychotherapy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic case study designs are emerging as alternative paradigm strategies for psychotherapy and social science research. Through enhanced sensitivity to context, these designs examine idiographic profiles of causal processes. We specifically advocate the use of the hermeneutic single-case efficacy design (HSCED). HSCED has recently been used to investigate the efficacy of an existing therapy with a new population (Observed and Experiential Integration for athlete performance barriers) and an emerging therapy (Lifespan Integration Therapy). We describe innovations in HSCED that were implemented for these studies. These developments include (a) integrating psychotherapists as case developers, (b) incorporating multiple cases in one investigation, and (c) tailoring the repertoire of assessment tools. These extensions strategically incorporated principles of contextual paradigms in HSCED, thus complementing single-case designs that neglect idiographic contexts. We discuss recommendations for using HSCED in practice-based research, highlighting its potential as a bridge to address the research-practice gap.

show abstract

Removing Barriers to Athlete Performance Enhancement: A Hermeneutic Case Study of Observed and Experiential Integration

Cited by 3 publications

References 35 publications

Psychological assessment in sport psychology.

Psychological assessment in sport psychology.

Commentary—Extending the Boundaries of Systematic Case Study Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

Enhancing the hermeneutic single-case efficacy design: Bridging the research–practice gap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About