Abstract
To identify problems in the derivation of conclusions from evidence in psychiatry research. The scientific model of falsificationism is described as determining the logical requirements for proving conclusions from research evidence. Common types of problematic conclusions are identified, and examples from the current research literature are given. Poorly formed conclusions are based on inadequate hypotheses, ambiguously phrased, blind to negative findings, fallacious in logic, or neglectful of alternative explanations. The risks of accepting poorly formed conclusions are premature closure of scientific investigations, poor basis for decisions in psychiatric practice, and provision of misinformation to patients. It is recommended that practitioners be attentive to this aspect of critically appraising research.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
