当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Determining the Singularity and Transdisciplinarity Properties of the Theory Evaluation Scale: A Literature Review
Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work Pub Date : 2021-07-13 , DOI: 10.1080/26408066.2021.1935378
Rigaud Joseph

ABSTRACT

Theories such as Social Darwinism and Culture of Poverty have negatively influenced public interest to date. Because theories play a major role in shaping public perspectives and policies, it is important to appraise their merits. Yet, the existing literature has predominantly relied on subjective means of theory evaluation. Joseph and Macgowan’s Theory Evaluation Scale (TES) provided the mechanism through which researchers can objectively evaluate the quality of theories. Through a thorough review of the literature, this paper tested two assumptions of the TES: (1) the singularity assumption and (2) the transdisciplinarity assumption. Results revealed that, besides the TES, the literature contained at least 14 other theory evaluation benchmarks emanating from 10 different disciplines: nursing, education, psychology, behavioral health, communication, information systems, sociology, business, political science, and criminal justice. Results also indicate that, despite their similarly with the TES in terms of content, these benchmarks lack psychometric properties to rise to the level of instrument. These findings therefore support both the singularity assumption and the transdisciplinarity assumption of the TES. This paper carries implications for interprofessional collaboration, a key benchmark for higher education in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, this paper has implications for psychometrics by extending the knowledge base of the TES as well as the scholarship on theory appraisal.



中文翻译:

确定理论评估量表的奇异性和跨学科特性:文献综述

摘要

迄今为止,社会达尔文主义和贫困文化等理论对公众利益产生了负面影响。由于理论在塑造公众观点和政策方面发挥着重要作用,因此评估它们的优点很重要。然而,现有文献主要依赖于理论评价的主观手段。Joseph 和 Macgowan 的理论评估量表 (TES) 提供了一种机制,研究人员可以通过该机制客观地评估理论的质量。通过全面查阅文献,本文检验了 TES 的两个假设:(1) 奇异性假设和 (2) 跨学科假设。结果显示,除了 TES 之外,文献还包含至少 14 个来自 10 个不同学科的其他理论评估基准:护理、教育、心理学、行为健康、通信、信息系统、社会学、商业、政治学和刑事司法。结果还表明,尽管它们在内容方面与 TES 相似,但这些基准缺乏提升到工具水平的心理测量特性。因此,这些发现支持 TES 的奇点假设和跨学科假设。本文对跨专业合作有影响,这是 21 世纪高等教育的一个关键基准。此外,本文通过扩展 TES 的知识库以及理论评估奖学金对心理测量学具有影响。这些基准缺乏上升到仪器水平的心理测量特性。因此,这些发现支持 TES 的奇点假设和跨学科假设。本文对跨专业合作有影响,这是 21 世纪高等教育的一个关键基准。此外,本文通过扩展 TES 的知识库以及理论评估奖学金对心理测量学具有影响。这些基准缺乏上升到仪器水平的心理测量特性。因此,这些发现支持 TES 的奇点假设和跨学科假设。本文对跨专业合作有影响,这是 21 世纪高等教育的一个关键基准。此外,本文通过扩展 TES 的知识库以及理论评估奖学金对心理测量学具有影响。

更新日期:2021-07-13
down
wechat
bug