Looking at the bowl of fruit or focussing on the apples? Reply to the comments of Schueller et al.
Keywords:Meta-analysis, positive psychology, moderator analysis, interventions, definition
The article of Schueller, Kashdan and Parks (2014) provides us with the opportunity to further clarify some aspects of the design and the choices we made in our meta-analysis "Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies" (Bolier et al., 2013). We appreciate their commentary and endorse the useful discussion of defining positive psychological interventions for future meta-analyses. Their main concern is that we were too narrow in our inclusion strategy and should have been more inclusive by integrating effectiveness studies of related areas in positive psychology. In this reply, we argue that our strategy is equally legitimate: science is often a piecemeal effort in which the researcher limits the scope and the research question. Defining the criteria of a positive psychological intervention (PPI) can be done in a broad or a more narrow way. We acknowledge that our meta-analysis has limitations. Limitations are inherent in all meta-analyses, especially when they are published as a journal paper, which limits the scope of any work. That said, the focus of our meta-analysis was based on a conscious choice and we presented a clear description of our search strategy in order to be transparent and produce a replicable review of the literature.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The license prevents others from using the work for profit without the express consent of the author(s). The license also prevents the creation of derivative works without the express consent of the author(s). Note that derivative works are very similar in nature to the original. Merely quoting (and appropriately referencing) a passage of a work is not making a derivative of it.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).