Brian Haig

This article examines the methodological foundations of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and suggests that it is properly construed as a method for generating explana- tory theories. In the first half of the article it is argued that EFA should be understood as an abductive method of theory generation that exploits an important precept of sci- entific inference known as the

This short article is a précis of the author's (2005a) abductive theory of scientific method. This theory of method assembles a complex of specific strategies and methods of relevance to psychology that are employed in the detection of empirical phenomena and the subsequent construction of explanatory theories. A characterization of the nature of phenomena is given, and the process of their detection is briefly described in terms of a multistage model of data analysis. The construction of explanatory theories is shown to involve their generation through abductive, or explanatory, reasoning, their development through analogical modeling, and their fuller appraisal in terms of judgments of the best of competing explanations. The nature and limits of this theory of method are discussed in the light of relevant developments in scientific methodology. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 64:1–4, 2008.

This special issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology comprises six theoretical papers that are concerned with the interconnected topics of scientific method, abductive inference, and clinical reasoning. The first four papers deal with the nature and limitations of a broad abductive theory of scientific method, and its application to clinical reasoning and case formulation. These are followed by three papers which in turn consider the prospects of using explanatory criteria to appraise competing models of psychopathy, examine the merits of a number of different psychometric perspectives on the assessment of psychopathology, and reject a core supposition of the orthodox approach to hypothesis testing. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 64: 1–6, 2008.

Gergen's (October 2001) recent advocacy of a postmodern conception of psychological science constitutes a direct challenge to psychology as it is commonly understood and practiced. I consider two of his major criticisms. The first criticism involves questioning the widely held belief ...

Clinical reasoning has traditionally been understood in terms of either hypothetico-deductive or Bayesian methods. However, clinical psychology requires an organizing framework that goes beyond the limits of these methods and characterizes the full range of reasoning processes involved in the description, understanding, and formulation of the difficulties presented by clients. In this article, the authors present a framework for clinical reasoning and case formulation that is largely based on a broad abductive theory of scientific method (Haig, 2005b). The abductive theory articulates and combines the processes of phenomena detection and theory construction. Both of these processes are applied to clinical reasoning and case formulation, and a running case example is provided to illustrate the application. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 64:1–24, 2008.

This special double issue of Measurement addresses a number of foundational issues in psychological measurement. It assembles three focus articles, with associated peer commentary, and replies by the authors. The first article challenges the routine assumption that psychometrics is a quantitative science; it argues that there may be no such thing as psychological measurement at all. The second article lays out a systematic framework for latent variable modeling that is intended to capture the notion of psychological measurement in its terms. The third article seeks to provide a conceptual distinction between theoretical variables that allow for an extension in possible worlds, and theoretical variables that do not. These focus articles are followed by a number of associated peer commentaries and replies by the authors.

Andrews et al. effectively argue that, despite prominent criticism, adaptationism can be a viable research strategy. We agree. In our complementary commentary, we discuss the neglected method of inference to the best explanation and argue that it is a valuable addition to the ...