abnormal evaluation points

luhrmann

strengths : structured interviews = direct comparisons between responses, transcription (word for word) = credibility and objective.

weaknesses : demand characteristics, lack of information regarding ethnicity.

friedlander and stockman

strengths : cause and effect relationship (IV is manipulated), counterbalanced with both groups doing each condition = no order effects.

weaknesses : small sample, culturally bias (reductionist) and limited to just 2 disorders.

temerlin

strengths : controlled experiment = replicable, cause and effect relationship (IV is manipulated), practical applications in diagnosis.

weaknesses : low eco validity, responses may’ve differed if it was a person-person interview.

langer and abelson

strengths : empirical evidence for labeling theory, controlled = high internal validity and highly replicable.

weaknesses : low eco validity, outdated study (issues with temporal validity and how it can be related today).

rosenhan

strengths : generalizable to men and women across different areas, covert observation means no demand characteristics.

weaknesses : only 8 pseudo patients (subjective analysis), deception raises concerns in ethics.

lipton and simon

strengths : high eco validity, large generalizability.

weaknesses : out of date DSM (issues with reliability), patients undergoing treatments may have different symptoms than they bean with.

felitti et al

strengths : large sample size, confirms other research.

weaknesses : self reported (demand characteristics), unclear how ACEs interact and contribute differently.

gove and fain

strengths : rich, qualitative data, real world application from real life patients

weaknesses : self report (demand characteristics), low temporal validity, subjective analysis